Internal city hall report released …

Hamtramck City Manager Max Garbarino

By Charles Sercombe
The heads are rolling in city hall.
And the local media is having a field day with their coverage of Hamtramck.
At Tuesday’s city council meeting, the council agreed to fire City Manger Max Garbarino.
Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri and police investigator Dave Adamczyk are next on the chopping block.
Garbarino had been on paid administrative leave for about a month, along with Altaheri and Adamczyk.
All were under an internal investigation, by a legal firm hired by the city council, after allegations of wrongdoing. The results of this investigation, which has so far cost the city over $300,000 — and could possibly end up costing $500,000 or more — found serious issues of wrongdoing with the police chief and police investigator Adamczyk.
As for Garbarino, he was criticized for recommending the chief hire investigator Adamczyk, and for not acting soon enough to take disciplinary action against Chief Altaheri.
The internal report on Altaheri included instances of drunk driving and being involved in transporting a stolen vehicle, among other alleged offenses.
Altaheri has denied the accusations.
Adamczyk initiated an investigation into Altaheri including secretly tape recording him, violating various department policies.
The council is also recommending that the city’s acting city manager — Syed Aamir Ahsan, who is also the city’s Finance Director –fire both Chief Altaheri and Adamczyk because the council does not have the authority to take that action.
That decision was reached after the mayor and council met in a closed session for nearly 90 minutes.
City Attorney Odey Meroueh said the decision is also based on a discussion with the city’s insurance attorney and the legal firm Miller Johnson, which conducted the internal investigation.
“We came to the undeniable conclusion, unfortunately, based on evidence presented, we have to terminate Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri,” Meroueh said.
Mayor Amer Ghalib said the decision to fire all three “seemed like the only solution at this time – or the safest one.”
All of this stems from an explosive internal 59-page report recently submitted by the law firm Miller Johnson. The Review obtained a copy of the report through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Here are some of the findings, verbatim:

Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri
The investigation substantiated several of the allegations against Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri.

Destroying evidence and obstructing the investigation
When Altaheri was placed on administrative leave by Garbarino, one of Altaheri’s first reactions after leaving Garbarino’s office was to wipe his City-issued phone. Altaheri directed an evidence technician (and
Altaheri’s friend) to erase the data on his phone. The technician immediately did so. Altaheri’s directive to destroy evidence violated multiple City policies.

Driving his City-issued vehicle after consuming alcohol
The investigation substantiated a widely known instance of Altaheri driving recklessly in his City-issued truck after consuming alcohol.
The evidence established that, on September 19, 2024, after attending an officer appreciation party and consuming alcohol, Altaheri drove to and from a strip club, with other officers riding with him, in his City-issued truck.
He activated his police lights to run red lights and drove erratically. Multiple witnesses observed him consuming significant amounts of alcohol and/or appearing inebriated before driving that night. Multiple officers also witnessed him driving recklessly.
Videos of his driving taken that night confirm their account, including showing Altaheri activating his police lights to run a red light and then immediately turning off his lights after he drove through the intersection with no plausible legitimate justification.
In addition to this significant incident, the investigation revealed other likely instances in which Altaheri consumed alcohol before driving his City-issued truck.

Reducing another officer’s discipline in exchange for the destruction of evidence
The video of Altaheri’s reckless driving also gave rise to another violation of HPD’s rules and regulations. A few months after the reckless driving incident, it was discovered that an HPD officer had committed timecard fraud. The officer, however, had a copy of the reckless driving video.
During the officer’s recorded disciplinary hearing, the officer should have been terminated or forced to resign in lieu of termination for timecard fraud, and Altaheri concluded as much.
However, prior to the hearing’s conclusion, Altaheri and the other officers involved in the disciplinary proceeding went off the record and met in a hallway to discuss the officer’s corrective action further. During that hallway conversation, Altaheri agreed to a lesser penalty in exchange for the officer deleting the reckless driving video.
Altaheri then came back on the record and changed the resignation in lieu of termination (as previously negotiated) to a 30-day suspension.
Because the evidence demonstrated that Altaheri’s decision to reduce the severity of the discipline was influenced by his desire for the officer to destroy compromising evidence against him, Altaheri’s conduct violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Handing a loaded gun to a civilian and instructing her to put it to someone’s head
The evidence also substantiated the allegation that Altaheri handed a loaded gun to a civilian volunteer and told her to put it to someone’s head.
A recording of that incident was previously released publicly and is the subject of local news articles. An officer who witnessed the event — and who quickly took the gun away from the volunteer — confirmed that the recording was accurate and that Altaheri handed the gun to the civilian volunteer.
During the investigation, Altaheri largely confirmed the facts but claimed that it was a joke. Whether or not Altaheri was “joking,” as he has claimed, the evidence shows that he created a serious danger in handing a loaded firearm to an untrained civilian volunteer in a crowded room.
Further, Altaheri’s contention that the firearm was unloaded is implausible given the available evidence, and even handing an unloaded gun to the civilian in that setting would violate HPD policies.

Pressuring officers to help him in a custody dispute
At least five 911 calls prompted HPD officers to respond to the residence that Altaheri shared with the mother of his two-year-old son.
There is evidence reflecting that in one instance, Altaheri suggested that officers conduct an investigation at the residence in a way that would be favorable to his position in a dispute over custody of his son.
On September 19, 2024 (the same night as the driving incident described above), officers responded to the house following a 911 hang-up call on which Altaheri and the woman can be heard arguing. Altaheri then apparently left the residence and arrived back at the house, giving the appearance that he was not at home when the 911 call was placed.
The police observed that the woman’s foot was injured, and the officers treated the call like a medical incident. Altaheri, however, told the officers to investigate her for drug use, conveying to three of them that he was hoping to use what they found (and any resulting police report) to gain custody of his son.
Two of the four officers thought that she might be intoxicated, but none of them believed there was a basis to investigate her for drug activity. Altaheri then told one of the officers to write the police report in a way that would be as vague as possible while helping him build his custody case.
The police report described the woman’s eyes as “glossy, bloodshot, and … not to react to light,” while omitting any mention of Altaheri’s presence during the incident.
In using his inherent power as Police Chief for personal benefit in this fashion, Altaheri violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Violating policies and procedures regarding stolen property
The investigation substantiated that Altaheri participated in the recovery of a vehicle that had been reported as stolen without following standard police practices and procedures. The vehicle, an expensive Mercedes Benz, was in the possession of one of Altaheri’s acquaintances.
Altaheri persuaded the acquaintance to turn over the car voluntarily to one of Altaheri’s longtime friends from New York. Adamczyk and two civilians — one a convicted felon — participated in the effort to recover the car and transport it to New York.
Although there were differing accounts as to whose idea
this escapade was, with Altaheri and Adamczyk pointing fingers at each other, it is undisputed that both of them participated in the conduct and failed to follow basic police procedures governing the recovery of a stolen car.

Violating other policies and procedures
The evidence obtained during the investigation also revealed that Altaheri gave Adamczyk unfettered access to his electronic signature and to at least one of his City-issued email accounts in violation of HPD policies. Altaheri’s conduct during two meetings in May 2025, one of which was recorded, also included physical and verbal threats that violated HPD’s rules and regulations.
Unsubstantiated allegations
The investigation did not confirm or dispel the allegation that Altaheri committed domestic violence and did not substantiate the allegation that he misused his authority as Police Chief to cover up acts of domestic violence. The investigation also did not uncover evidence that Altaheri improperly solicited money from a local towing company operator.

Officer David Adamczyk
The investigation likewise substantiated some of the allegations against Officer David Adamczyk.

Recording other officers
Adamczyk’s recordings were not per se illegal, nor a violation of HPD’s rules and regulation. But because Adamczyk made some of those recordings as part of a broader plan to exert leverage over Altaheri and other officers, his conduct violated HPD’s rules and regulations and City policies in other ways.
Further, when asked during his interview about the extent of his recordings, Adamczyk lied about them — as evidenced by the additional recordings recovered from his City-issued phone, which is an independent basis for issuing corrective action against him.
Attempting to manipulate the sergeant’s examination and then leaking other allegations to pressure Altaheri
The evidence showed that, with Altaheri’s assistance, Adamczyk attempted to rig a sergeant’s promotion examination in his favor. When Adamczyk learned that he still finished second, after seniority points, he compiled and released the list of allegations against Altaheri that eventually precipitated this investigation.
The timing of Adamczyk’s actions, the content of contemporaneous recordings that he made, and Adamczyk’s subsequent leaking of those allegations to other HPD officers strongly support the inference that Adamczyk was seeking to pressure Altaheri into promoting him. In using his allegations here as leverage for personal benefit, Adamczyk violated HPD’s rules and regulations.

Violating policies and procedures regarding stolen property
As discussed above, Adamczyk participated in the improper recovery of a stolen car. In failing to write a report, use his body camera, or record the recovery of the vehicle through official law enforcement channels, Adamczyk violated myriad policies.
Although he later claimed he did so at the express direction of Altaheri, Altaheri did not have the authority to order him to conduct law
enforcement activity outside Hamtramck, and even if he did, based on Adamczyk’s version of the events, any such order would have been illegal and Adamczyk should not have followed it.

Committing overtime abuse
The investigation uncovered evidence that Adamczyk submitted overtime for hours that he did not actually work, or mischaracterized the nature of his overtime.
The investigation of this allegation was limited by the lack of documentation for Adamczyk’s work and by the fact that Altaheri permitted Adamczyk to sign his own overtime slips using Altaheri’s electronic signature.
But GPS location data from Adamczyk’s City-issued phone shows that, on at least two occasions, Adamczyk was at his home during the hours when he claimed overtime for a special assignment with the Detroit Police Department’s Commercial Auto Theft Section (CATS).
He also claimed overtime for three other instances when he claimed to be working for a different special assignment, this time with the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, even though Wayne County officials have since confirmed that he did virtually no work for them.

Unsubstantiated allegations
The remaining allegations against Adamczyk were not substantiated.

City Manager Max Garbarino
The investigation largely did not substantiate the initial allegations against City Manager Max Garbarino, but it identified that Garbarino exercised significant poor judgment in his role as City Manager and other instances in which his actions did not comport with his obligations under the Hamtramck City Charter, City policies, or supervisory expectations for his position.

Garbarino’s prior separation agreement with the City

Garbarino did not breach or improperly conceal his prior separation agreement with the City when he returned to City employment in late 2019 as the Director of Community Safety and Services. Garbarino’s prior separation agreement was well-known, and openly discussed at the City Council meeting when his rehiring and new employment agreement were approved.
As the then-City Attorney explained at the time, the City was permitted to modify Garbarino’s prior separation agreement with his new employment agreement. And the new employment agreement, by its own terms, superseded that previous separation agreement.
Garbarino’s attendance at the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025
The investigation did not substantiate the allegations that Garbarino’s conduct in attending the City Council meeting on June 10, 2025, violated any laws or policies.
It was a public meeting, and the terms of Garbarino’s administrative leave did not prohibit his attendance or interactions at that meeting.
But we question whether Garbarino exercised good judgment in attending that meeting, while armed with his concealed pistol, so soon after being put on administrative leave.

Rehiring of David Adamczyk
On multiple occasions, Garbarino asked both the former Police Chief and Altaheri to consider rehiring Adamczyk as an HPD officer.
The investigation revealed that Adamczyk left HPD employment in 2002 under a cloud, and Garbarino too quickly ignored other officers’ concerns about rehiring him.
Garbarino also did not conduct any investigation into the circumstances of Adamczyk’s previous departure from HPD, other than
just accepting Adamczyk’s characterization of what had happened.
During his interview with Miller Johnson, Garbarino downplayed his own responsibility for Adamczyk’s rehiring, repeatedly stating that he made only an “introduction” of Adamczyk to Altaheri and left the
ultimate hiring decision to Altaheri. Garbarino’s account understates the impact and pressure that a supervisor’s “introduction” would have on a relatively new subordinate, which Altaheri was at the time.
Garbarino’s characterization also minimizes the unique personal relationship that Adamczyk and Garbarino enjoyed, with Adamczyk previously providing Garbarino employment after Garbarino’s prior separation from the City, and Garbarino already trying unsuccessfully to get Adamczyk rehired by the former Police Chief. Given this circumstantial evidence, a reasonable decision-maker could find that Garbarino was motivated to get Adamczyk rehired due to their personal relationship and was not simply making introductions.

Delays in addressing allegations of misconduct
The information obtained during the investigation, including many of the allegations noted above, supported Garbarino’s decision to
place Altaheri and Adamczyk on administrative leave on May 21, 2025.
If anything, Garbarino should have suspended them even earlier, given the seriousness of the allegations and when he was made aware of them. Garbarino, for instance, appears to have learned several months earlier that Altaheri was recklessly driving his City-provided vehicle after consuming alcohol and that Altaheri reduced the severity of discipline imposed for an officer’s timecard fraud at least in part to ensure that the officer would destroy a compromising video of him.
Garbarino also knew that those instances by the Police Chief were well-known within the police department, which negatively impacted the workforce. Garbarino suggested to Miller Johnson that he did not have
enough evidence to act, but given his responsibilities as City Manager, it seems more likely that the failed to act earlier for personal reasons, namely out of fear that intervening might jeopardize his own job. Garbarino’s delays in taking action were inconsistent with his obligations under the Hamtramck City Charter, City policies, and supervisory expectations for his position.

Other miscellaneous allegations of misconduct
The investigation did not substantiate the other allegations levied against Garbarino, including the allegations in the written memorandum that was released publicly and then subsequently passed along to Miller Johnson.

The Review will dig deep into the report in the weeks to come.
Meanwhile, Chief Altaheri issued a statement through a public relations company and his attorney, Amir Makled, to say the following:
“Throughout my time as Chief, my priority has always been the safety and well-being of the people of Hamtramck. Under my leadership, we have expanded community outreach, built trust with residents and businesses while taking steps to modernize the department. It is unfortunate that these contributions are being overshadowed by a process that disregards due process and fairness.”
Altaheri’s statement continued:
“Termination is not only unfair to me but also harmful to our city. The people of Hamtramck deserve steady leadership, not more division. I remain committed to defending my reputation through the legal process and to ensuring that the truth is heard.”
The attorney for both City Manager Garbarino and police investigator Adamczyk, Reno Arabo, told The Review:
“This is just the latest in a long line of mistakes by the city council. They relied on a report from an employment-defense firm that was biased from the very beginning.
“I was in my clients’ interviews myself, and I saw how their statements were mischaracterized and twisted to fit a narrative.
“That report is not reliable. Instead of scapegoating two whistleblowers who tried to protect this city, the council should be holding each other accountable for the fraud and corruption they’re involved in.”

To read the full report by the legal firm Miller Johnson, click on this link: https://go.boarddocs.com/mi/cohmi/Board.nsf/files/DKXL4A54B213/$file/Hamtramck%20Investigation%20Report%20-%20August%2024%2C%202025.pdf

Posted Aug. 29, 2025