SOUPNUTZ EXCLUSIVE: THE DEPOSITION THAT SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD

You ever read something and think, “Wow. That’s either confidence… or denial”?

Sergeant Matthew Brown’s September 24, 2025 deposition in Cuypers v. Taylor isn’t a Hollywood script. It’s 64 pages of federal court testimony.

And it reads like a masterclass in selective memory.

(See Brown Deposition filed Nov. 14, 2025 )

“Countless Hours of Training”

Brown testifies he’s been with SPD since May 2013. Sergeant since 2020. Bachelor’s in political science.

He says he’s received:

“Countless hours of training.” (p.15)

Countless.

That’s not training. That’s a Netflix series.

He confirms he was trained on when it’s appropriate to draw a firearm:

Officers may draw when they have “reasonable suspicion to believe that the use of deadly force may be necessary.” (Use of Force policy, p.17)

He confirms he’s trained on passive vs. active resistance:

Passive resistance:

“Non-threatening and non-compliant behavior.” (p.20)

Active resistance:

“Physically counteracts an officer’s control efforts and creates risk of bodily harm.” (p.20)

Clear definitions.

Clean lines.

Until real life happens.

The Memory Fog

Now let’s talk about what he doesn’t remember.

When asked about a documented arrest that resulted in a downgrade in his performance evaluation for:

“Improper development, supervision, and execution of a planned arrest” (p.30)

His response?

“I honestly don’t know which arrest that one is talking about.” (p.30)

Later, regarding meetings with probationary Officer Justin Taylor after deficiencies were identified in:

• Patrol tactics

• Officer safety

• Problem solving

• Decision making

He says:

“I honestly don’t recall.” (p.41–43)

He signed the Performance Improvement Plan extending Taylor’s probation by eight shifts (p.40).

But the discussions?

The guidance?

The corrective supervision?

Foggy.

That’s not a paperwork issue.

That’s a supervision issue.

The Irony: “We Formulated a Plan”

Here’s the part that stings.

In a prior commendation, Brown was praised because officers:

“Formulated a very well thought-out plan and executed it with perfection.” (p.33)

He was literally commended for slowing down and planning before engaging a mentally ill subject.

But in this case?

The federal lawsuit centers on whether officers escalated force appropriately, whether resistance was passive or active, and whether supervision mattered.

Planning is a virtue when it earns a commendation.

But apparently optional when it risks civil liability.

That’s not satire.

That’s irony wearing body armor.

The Civil Rights Elephant in the Room

Here’s the bigger question:

When has Mayor Jim Paine publicly acknowledged a civil rights violation in Superior?

When has this City Council ever said, “We got this one wrong”?

Not “we’re reviewing policies.”

Not “we take this seriously.”

Actual acknowledgment.

Because federal civil rights lawsuits don’t materialize out of thin Lake Superior air.

They arise when someone claims constitutional violations.

And here’s the irony:

If you never admit violations exist,
You never reform them.
You just defend them.

Every time.

Why Taxpayers Should Care

Brown testified he can override officers. He supervises probationary officers. He can see CAD entries live.

He has authority.

Authority equals responsibility.

When supervision gaps meet documented probationary deficiencies and federal litigation, plaintiffs don’t just sue the officer.

They sue the system.

Civil rights lawsuits cost money whether you win or lose.

• Legal defense costs

• Insurance premium increases

• Potential settlements

• Policy overhaul expenses

And if leadership refuses to acknowledge constitutional failures publicly, they signal one thing:

Litigate first. Reflect later.

That strategy doesn’t save money.

It postpones accountability.

And postponement compounds cost.

Final Crossing Signal

Sergeant Brown testified under oath.

He confirmed training.

He confirmed supervision authority.

He confirmed policy definitions.

He confirmed extending probation for deficiencies.

He confirmed he doesn’t recall key meetings.

That’s not villainy.

That’s vulnerability.

And here’s the uncomfortable part:

When leadership never publicly acknowledges civil rights violations, it creates a culture where lawsuits are treated like weather events instead of warning signs.

You can’t fix what you won’t name.

And taxpayers shouldn’t fund denial.

Mic drop.

Source :