UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARREN SONDEY, as personal 

representative of the estate of 

THOMAS F. SONDEY, deceased, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 14-13808 

CHAD WOLOWIEC, 

TODD BENCZKOWSKI, 

MICHAEL HUDDAS, 

DARRYL BAGIANO, and 

THADDEAUS LAMBIRIS, HON. AVERN COHN 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 56) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. The Case 

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Darren Sondey, on behalf of 

the estate of father Thomas Sondey (Sondey), seeks damages for Sondey’s death while 

in police custody in Warren, MI. Plaintiff names as defendants 5 police officers in the 

Warren Police Department (WPD): Chad Wolowiec (Wolowiec), Todd Benczkowski 

(Benczkowski), Michael Huddas (Huddas), Darryl Bagiano (Bagiano), and Thaddeaus 

Lambiris (Lambiris). These officers were variously involved in the arrest and detention 

of Sondey in the Warren City Jail from 4:50pm on Monday, September 24, 2012 until 

3:34am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012, when he was hospitalized and subsequently 

pronounced dead. During this time period, the plaintiff claims each police officer was 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1237
 

2 

deliberately indifferent to Sondey’s serious medical needs. The defendants say in 

response there is insufficient evidence from which to infer the officers consciously 

disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Sondey. 

B. Pending Summary Judgment Motion 

1. 

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, (Doc. 56). In support, they cite 

the deposition testimony of Wolowiec, Benczkowski and Bagiano, and of non-party 

police officers working in the jail. Defendants also cite video records from the police car 

at Sondey’s initial arrest and then inside the jail. They cite a variety of records such as 

police reports, booking documents and time logs. Lastly, the defendants cite the report 

of the medical examiner who performed an autopsy. Both the plaintiff and defendants 

cite reports from various medical experts as to the cause of Sondey’s death. 

Plaintiff has moved for sanctions on the grounds that the defendants have 

spoliated video records, (Doc. 67). Plaintiff points to time gaps in video footage at 

critical places and times, saying this indicates editing by the defendants. Defendants 

say the gaps are the result of camera sensors not detecting motion and that the motion 

is frivolous. Defendants have filed a cross motion for sanctions on the ground that 

plaintiff’s motion is frivolous, (Doc. 83). 

2. 

On August 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion 

and sanctions motions. The Court deferred consideration of the sanctions motions until 

the end of the case, and heard argument on the summary judgment motion. The Court 

asked the defendants to provide a complete record, and an accompanying log, of the 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 1238
 

3 

video and audio of Sondey’s initial arrest and then while he was in custody. The 

defendants have provided a copy of these records with a corresponding time log. 

3. 

There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Wolowiec and 

Benczkowki were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Sondey, which 

can only be resolved by trial. However, summary judgment is appropriate as to the 

remaining defendants for whom there is insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference. 

Thus, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART. 

II. BACKGROUND 

The facts concerning Sondey’s arrest, detention, and death are summarized 

below, each officer’s actions being considered separately. 

A. Arrest and Trip to Jail 

Wolowiec and Benczkowki responded to a 911 call at 4:43pm on a Monday. The 

call was generated by a passerby seeing Sondey “slumped” over the steering wheel of 

a truck parked in the aisle of a parking lot with the motor “running.” The officers arrived 

at the scene at 4:50. The Warren Fire Department (WFD), responding to the 911 call, 

was already there. The officers approached the truck. Benczkowki questioned Sondey, 

whose head leaned on the steering wheel. Wolowiec and Benczkowki both noticed an 

“odor of intoxicants.” They said Sondey’s speech was slurred and his eyes bloodshot. 

Benczkowki asked Sondey if he had “any medical problems.” He mumbled “no.” 

At the same time, the WFD was checking Sondey’s blood sugar and performing 

a “squeeze test” to see if he was diabetic. This procedure took 2 minutes. 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 1239
 

4 

The WFD responder had prescription medications taken from inside the truck. 

He told the officers: “these pills are from 2010. Vicodin, so. There’s only 2 left. But 

still—3 years old.” The WFD run report says no emergency medical services or other 

aid was administered to Sondey. The WFD left and played no further role. 

Benczkowki ordered Sondey out of the truck. Sondey refused. Wolowiec and 

Benczkowki then hoisted him out of the truck. Sondey fell immediately to the ground. 

Then, Wolowiec and Benczkowki handcuffed him and searched him by rolling his body 

over on the ground. Together, the two of them lifted Sondey by both his arms and 

carried him to their police car. 

While Sondey was in the police car, Wolowiec searched the truck. In the 

passenger seat of the truck, Wolowiec found a bag with an empty orange juice bottle 

and an open “pint” of vodka that was 1⁄4 full. In addition, Wolowiec found 2 prescription 

pill bottles, one in a passenger side door for a narcotic “Hydrocodone,” with 2 pills left, 

and one in a center cup holder, with 7 pills left. A halved pill was on the driver’s door 

handle. Both bottles indicated the prescriptions were filled more than 2 years earlier.1

While in the police car, Sondey repeatedly cried out the name of his wife, Sophie. 

Sondey was unable to sit upright and fell to the floor. He continuously asked the 

officers why he was arrested. Wolowiec responded by telling him it was for operating 

under the influence of a controlled substance. Wolowiec asked Sondey “what kind of 

medical problems you got, partner?” Sondey did not answer. Sondey asked to be 

 1

 The pill bottle in the cup holder was labeled for an antibiotic, Amoxicillin. 

However, as Wolowiec later determined, the inscriptions on the pills reflected the bottle 

had 6 pills of Tramadol, a pain reliever, and 1 pill of Hydrocodone. 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 1240
 

5 

released from the police car. Wolowiec told Sondey of the pills that were found and 

asked him if he had used them with alcohol. He got no answer. 

During the drive to the jail, Sondey requested a breathalyzer test, water, and to 

speak to his wife. Wolowiec told him his requests could be handled at the jail. On the 

way there, Sondey snored briefly between talking to the officers. When the police car 

arrived at the jail at 5:21, a third officer from another police car with a detainee said “our 

guy’s about passed out.” Someone then laughed although it is unclear from the video 

who. Wolowiec responded “our guy can’t hardly walk.” 

B. Booking and Transfer to Jail Cell 

Wolowiec and Benczkowki carried Sondey out of the police car into the jail by 

holding up his arms. In the jail, Sondey fell face-first in the hallway, with the full weight 

of his body hitting the floor. Wolowiec and Benczkowki slid Sondey along the floor by 

his torso into an elevator. When the elevator got to the booking area, Huddas helped 

Wolowiec and Benczkowki carry Sondey out of the elevator by his hands and feet. 

While in the booking area tagging evidence, Wolowiec looked up the pills found 

in Sondey’s truck on http://www.drugs.com and identified them as Tramadol and 

Hydrocodone. The halved pill found on the driver’s door handle was Hydrocodone. 

According to drugs.com, Tramadol and Hydrocodone can have lethal side effects 

when taken with alcohol. Wolowiec had training in narcotics and alcohol use. He 

testified in his deposition that he was aware that the interaction of alcohol and narcotics 

could cause death. Benczkowki likewise testified in deposition that he was aware that 

the interaction of alcohol and prescription pain medications, when taken in improper 

quantities, could result in death. 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 1241
 

6 

Wolowiec said in his case report that Sondey was “highly intoxicated, could not 

walk on his own, kept falling even with officers trying to hold him up.” The booking slip, 

registered by Benczkowki, said Sondey had a “Medical Problem” and “Requires 

Medication.” It also noted Sondey was intoxicated and had “a hard time walking.” 

Bagiano was the “book officer”2 at the time Sondey entered the jail. Bagiano was 

given the booking slip. In his deposition, Bagiano did not recall whether he saw Sondey 

enter the jail, spoke to Wolowiec or Benczkowki during booking, or knew about the 

prescription pills found with Sondey. 

Sondey’s blood alcohol content was tested at the jail by Huddas and another 

officer. Wolowiec and Benczkowki were informed the level was .149, according to a 

preliminary breath test. It increased to .16 in roughly 30 minutes based on a 

breathalyzer test administered by Huddas (the legal limit is .08).3

At 6:20, Huddas escorted Sondey to a holding area with other detainees. 

Sondey walked without assistance. Huddas spoke with Sondey for nearly a minute 

before closing the door to the holding area. Sondey requested a chemical blood test 

administered in Lansing, MI based on information read to him from the alcohol tests. 

At roughly 6:50, Wolowiec and Benczkowki visited Sondey in the holding area. 

They denied his request for a chemical blood test. At no time did Sondey ever receive 

medical attention. 

C. In the Jail Cell 

 2

 According to Bagiano, the book officer works in the jail control room and 

handles paperwork, monitors jail video, answers the phone, logs activities of other 

officers in the jail, and operates the elevators. 

3

 Wolowiec and Bagiano testified the WPD’s policy requires hospitalization for a 

blood alcohol content of .35 or higher. 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 1242
 

7 

The jail log indicates Huddas did “cell checks” of Sondey at 7:14, 8:06, 8:59, 

10:03, and 10:56. At 10:58, the jail video shows Huddas transferring Sondey in a 

wheelchair to a fingerprinting room. In the video Sondey looked despondent, as if his 

condition had worsened. No reason is given for the wheelchair, and nothing is seen of 

Sondey talking to Huddas. 

At 11:11, Huddas handed Sondey a blanket in the fingerprinting room and 

wheeled him back to the holding area. At 11:29, Huddas did another cell check of 

Sondey. Nothing further is seen of Huddas. 

At midnight, Bagiano transitioned to detention officer. Lambiris took over as book 

officer. Bagiano performed the final cell checks of Sondey—at 12:58am and 2:00am. 

Bagiano did not “assess” Sondey, but noticed he was “sleeping sitting up” on a bench. 

D. Medical Event 

At 3:05, Lester Jennings-Bush, a detainee, was escorted into the holding area. 

Although Sondey was initially asleep, Jennings-Bush said in an interview that within “a 

few minutes” he observed Sondey having a seizure (3:08-09). 

Jennings-Bush said he alerted officers by pounding on the holding area window. 

Jennings-Bush said 3 or 4 officers watched Sondey seize through the window for over a 

minute, and he heard someone saying “you have to let it play out” and “there is nothing 

[we] can do.” The video of relevant locations in the jail skips over this time period. 

Lambiris was in the control room. He sent a dispatch call to 911 at 3:10 

regarding Sondey, saying “need medical here for inmate having a seizure.” 

Bagiano entered the holding area at 3:12 and assisted other officers with efforts 

at resuscitating Sondey until the fire department arrived at 3:19. Bagiano described 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 1243
 

8 

Sondey as “shaking” and seizing during the episode, noting he then turned a blueish 

color, which is confirmed by video. Sondey was transported to the hospital at 3:34, 

arrived at 3:45, and was pronounced dead at 4:09. A toxicology report revealed the 

presence of alcohol, hydrocodone, and opiates. 

E. Autopsy 

An autopsy by Dr. Daniel Spitz on the morning of Sondey’s death revealed that 

one of his coronary arteries was 70% narrowed. The autopsy concluded Sondey died 

from “natural” causes, namely “Arteriosclerotic and Hypertensive Heart Disease.” 

According to a report from a medical expert for the plaintiff, “[t]he compromising effects 

of these chronic conditions that are quite common in men [Sondey’s] age . . . became 

lethal when [Sondey] had a seizure caused by the interaction between increasing blood 

alcohol levels interacting with narcotic pain medicines.” Another expert says a 70% 

narrowing of the coronary artery, combined with physical attributes of Sondey’s 

cardiovascular system at death, is inconsistent with an acute coronary event. A report 

from the defendants’ expert opines that Sondey’s death “was the result of sudden 

cardiac death precipitated by longstanding untreated obstructive sleep apnea.” 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Summary judgment will be granted if the moving party demonstrates that there is 

“no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue of material fact when 

“the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 

non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 

587 (1986). The Court must decide “whether the evidence presents a sufficient 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 1244
 

9 

disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party 

must prevail as a matter of law.” In re Dollar Corp., 25 F.3d 1320, 1323 (6th Cir. 1994) 

(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). In doing so, the 

Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 

Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Petrol. Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 101 (6th Cir. 1995). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. Relevant Law 

“Deliberate indifference” by police officers to a prisoner’s “serious medical needs” 

violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle 

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). An analogous constitutional protection exists for 

detainees in a jail facility under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 

Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 685-86 (6th Cir. 2001). This extends to 

the failure to provide needed medical care in some circumstances. Flanory v. Bonn, 

604 F.3d 249, 253 (6th Cir. 2010). To establish a constitutional violation for deliberate 

indifference, both an objective and subjective component must be met. Id.

Objectively, a detainee must have a medical need “sufficiently serious” that 

denial of medical care poses “a substantial risk of serious harm” to the detainee. 

Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013). That is, a condition “so 

obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the need for medical treatment.” 

Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 476 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Subjectively, a police officer must (1) be aware of facts from which to infer a 

“substantial risk” of harm without medical care, (2) actually draw the inference of such a 

risk to the detainee, and (3) act in disregard of this posed risk. Quigley, 707 F.3d 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 1245
 

10 

at 681. This needs “a degree of culpability greater than mere negligence, but less than 

‘acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will 

result.’” Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 813 (6th Cir. 2005). “[A] factfinder may 

conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk 

was obvious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). 

B. Analysis 

1. Wolowiec and Benczkowki 

There is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Sondey, at the time of his 

interactions with Wolowiec and Benczkowki, had a serious medical need. Sondey was 

found slumped over the steering wheel of his truck with an empty pint of liquor and 

significant narcotics and pain medications nearby, including a halved pill outside the 

bottle. Sondey was incoherent, unable to stand or walk, and carried into the jail by 

3 police officers. The pills found all around Sondey, if ingested with alcohol, were 

capable of causing death. The circumstances of his arrest suggested he likely ingested 

a number of the pills, though an exact quantity was unknown. Sondey’s blood alcohol 

content was on the rise, increasing in a short period. It is a reasonable conclusion this 

was enough to alert a lay person of Sondey’s need for medical attention. 

There is also enough in the facts known to reasonably conclude Wolowiec and 

Benczkowki perceived a substantial risk of serious harm. Sondey was arrested for 

operating under the influence of a controlled substance. Wolowiec asked Sondey if he 

had ingested the pills with alcohol. He received no answer. Once in the police car, 

Sondey behaved strangely and called out repeatedly for his wife. At the jail, Wolowiec 

researched the pills found with Sondey on a drug website. The website indicates that 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 1246
 

11 

the pills were potentially deadly if combined with alcohol. Wolowiec and Benczkowki 

were aware of the dangers of combining narcotics, pain medications, and alcohol. 

Benczkowki marked Sondey as having a “Medical Problem” on his jail booking slip. 

Wolowiec’s case report noted Sondey was “highly intoxicated, could not walk on his 

own, [and] kept falling even with officers trying to hold him up.” 

There is a triable issue regarding whether Wolowiec and Benczkowki 

disregarded the risk posed to Sondey by the combination of pills and alcohol. The WFD 

run report reflects that Sondey received no aid or emergency medical services. The jail 

to which Sondey was taken had no medical personnel, nor was a medical professional 

ever consulted. Moreover, Wolowiec and Benczkowki denied Sondey’s request for a 

chemical blood test once in the holding area. There is a genuine issue of material fact 

as to whether Wolowiec and Benczkowki acted in disregard of Sondey’s serious 

medical needs given the gravity of what they saw and no evident effort to seek medical 

attention on his behalf. 

2. Huddas 

Little is known about Huddas’s subjective knowledge and perceptions because 

he was not deposed. Huddas helped carry Sondey out of the elevator into the booking 

area and observed him for 25 minutes during his breathalyzer test, which produced a 

reading of .16. Amid hourly cell checks, and nearly 6 hours after Sondey’s initial arrest, 

Huddas wheeled Sondey out of the holding area in a wheelchair to be fingerprinted. 

Construing the evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiff, there is nothing to 

indicate Huddas knew about the pills found with Sondey. Moreover, Huddas did not see 

anything firsthand that would have been inconsistent with alcohol intoxication. As there 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 1247
 

12 

is nothing showing that Huddas had reason to perceive or disregard a serious medical 

need of Sondey, summary judgment is appropriate as to Huddas. 

3. Bagiano 

Although Bagiano was the book officer at the time Sondey entered the jail, the 

extent of his knowledge of Sondey’s circumstances is unknown. Bagiano did not recall 

if he spoke with Wolowiec and Benczkowki or knew about the pills found with Sondey. 

Bagiano knew from the booking slip that Sondey was intoxicated and had a “Medical 

Problem.” He did the final cell checks before Sondey’s death. 

Jennings-Bush did not specifically name Bagiano as an officer he alerted of 

Sondey’s seizure when it first began. Because of this, and because Bagiano does not 

recall key facts such as whether he talked to Wolowiec and Benczkowki about the pills, 

there is not enough evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Bagiano disregarded a 

serious medical need of Sondey. Summary judgment is appropriate as to Bagiano. 

4. Lambiris 

Lambiris was not deposed, and it is unclear what communications, if any, he had 

with Bagiano and others about the facts of Sondey’s case or his medical status. 

Lambiris called 911 at 3:10am to report Sondey’s seizure. There is no evidence that 

 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 1248
 

13 

Lambiris knew about or disregarded a serious medical need of Sondey then or 

beforehand. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate as to Lambiris. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 AVERN COHN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 31, 2016 

 Detroit, Michigan 

2:14-cv-13808-AC-RSW Doc # 89 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 1249