The city is well aware that there is a federal statute which would prohibit Mr. Dutcher from going through the mail of student residents and that conduct would not be tolerated by any of the East Lansing city officials, much less swept under the rug as your editorial suggests. In trying to determine the veracity of Ms. Ezop’s affidavit, it came to light that she never actually accompanied Mr. Dutcher on his investigations. Further, the testimony of her co-workers also revealed that Ms. Ezop had a history of credibility problems well before she made these allegations.

The assertion — that instead of investigating the claims, the city is trying to get the case dismissed the instant it is brought into the circuit court — is also a mischaracterization of the status of the litigation. The fact is this litigation was filed on Dec. 1, 2010. Since that time, each side has been engaged in what the legal system calls “discovery.” That means there is an opportunity for each side to submit questions that have to be answered under oath and take the depositions of witnesses that they deem would be appropriate and necessary for trial preparation. That discovery process disclosed, quite clearly, that Ms. Ezop’s allegations were just that — unfounded allegations — since she had no personal knowledge of any actions of Mr. Dutcher when he was doing his investigations.

Illegal searches by city employees have never been condoned. If credible evidence was provided that city employees were illegally searching mailboxes, I am confident they would be disciplined accordingly.

Thomas M. Yeadon, East Lansing city attorney