Superior’s Selective Constitution: From No GPS to Too Much GPS

Superior can’t seem to get its story straight on the Fourth Amendment. In 2022, a FOIA request asked for GPS data on a rookie officer accused of circling a resident’s alley like it was a NASCAR track. The chief’s answer? “GPS?” Fast forward, and now Superior is being sued by one of its own officers, Mikayla Lerette—this time for allegedly tracking her vehicle without consent in the same time frame.

So when a resident wanted rookie accountability, there was magically no GPS. But when the city wanted to keep tabs on its own officers, suddenly the satellites were working overtime. In Superior, your rights depend less on the Constitution and more on who’s holding the paperwork.

The 2022 FOIA That Went Missing

Summer 2022: a resident reports to the Police Chief a rookie officer stalking his residence from his alley,  and files a FOIA for her squads GPS records, and dashcam video.  Warns the chief that a restraining order is coming if the resident see’s the Rookie  around his residence again. The request was backed up with video, and picture evidence of the rookie officer clearly watching the residence from her patrol car with no warrant, and no probable cause. The city’s response? The Chief identified the Rookie, but video from her squad, and gps data just crickets. Apparently, Superior PD couldn’t track it’s cars in the Summer of 2022.

The Lawsuit That Followed

Fast forward, and irony shows up in court wearing a badge. Officer Lerette sues Superior for violating her Fourth Amendment rights, claiming the city tracked her patrol car without cause. So let’s get this straight: when a resident needed GPS to protect themselves from a rookie cop, crickets. When the city wanted to spy on its own? Boom—GPS suddenly had full bars.

No GPS. Too much GPS. Same city. Same amendment. Different victims.

Spin & Translation

Official line: “What GPS data in 2022.”
Translation: “We didn’t want you to have it.”

Official line: “We value our officers.”
Translation: “Unless they start asking about their own rights.”

Official line: “We respect the Constitution.”
Translation: “Only when it’s convenient.”

How This Fits the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court says force must be “objectively reasonable.” Yet in Superior, compliance can get you tased, and silence can get you surveilled.

Take Ian Cuypers: compliant DoorDash driver, tasered anyway, and charged with resisting. A jury said he wasn’t resisting. The city still dragged him through municipal court, no less, where cases are downgraded like old cell phone plans. That’s not justice; that’s a loophole with legal stationery.

Superior’s Rap Sheet: Constitutional Crimes & Misdemeanors

• 2022 – GPS Dodge: Resident asks for GPS to prove stalking. City response: “What?”

• 2022–2024 – NTEC Silenced: Mayor Paine cancels due process like it’s an expired coupon.

• 2023 – Cuypers Tased: DoorDash driver shocked, charged, acquitted. City shoves case into municipal court to avoid the DA.

• 2024 – 40 Cases Tossed: DA dumps 40 cases thanks to a lying officer. Did Superior’s mini-court already cash in on any?

• 2024 – GPS Whiplash: Officer Lerette sues the city for tracking her vehicle. Same city that once swore it had no GPS at all.

From no GPS to too much GPS, from rookie misfires to mayoral shortcuts, Superior’s rap sheet reads like a constitutional comedy special. Except the punchlines are now being paid in taxpayer dollars.

Mic Drop

Superior can’t hide behind “just doing the job.” When a jury says “not guilty,” but you already tased the guy, and the city attorney has already prosecuted him. When a Mayor denies NTEC simple hearings because he may not agree with them.  When you cricket patrol car GPS data then get sued for using that same requested GPS Data—you don’t have a policy problem. You have a credibility problem.

Democracy is supposed to align force with law. In Superior, it’s currently the other way around: force first, excuses later. And the Fourth Amendment? Just another prop in the city’s ongoing improv show.

Taxpayer Invoice: Superior’s Running Tab

Line Items:

• FOIA stonewalling: $0 upfront, $$$ later in lawsuits.

• Rookie mistakes: Priceless (but billed to residents anyway).

• Municipal court prosecutions: Cheaper than the DA, until more lawsuits start.

• Forty tossed cases: Don’t worry, you already paid for them.

• GPS lawsuits: Satellites aren’t free, and neither are settlements.

Total Due: Whatever’s left in the city budget… plus interest in public trust.

Payment method accepted: Taxpayer wallets only.