ShareThis Page
Chelsa Wagner declares partial victory in Detroit case, releases more video |

Chelsa Wagner declares partial victory in Detroit case, releases more video

Tom Davidson
Tom Davidson | Tribune-Review
Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner, right, and her husband Khari Losley talk Saturday, March 9, 2019, about what happened during an on Wednesday at a Detroit hotel that ended with Wagner in jail.
Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner appears in a video arraignment at 36th District Court in Detroit on March 25, 2019. Wagner was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing the police during an incident at the Westin Book Cadillac hotel in Detroit on March 6.
Khari Mosley, husband of Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner, appears in a video arraignment at 36th District court in Detroit on March 25, 2019. The pair were charged with resisting arrest and obstructing the police during an incident at the Westin Book Cadillac hotel in Detroit on March 6.

Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner is declaring victory in the case involving a March 6 encounter she and her husband had with Detroit police, according to a statement emailed to the Tribune-Review on Saturday by a public relations firm that’s representing the couple.

The firm also released more video footage of the incident that they say shows Wagner wasn’t the aggressor during the confrontation.

On Thursday, a Detroit judge ordered Wagner, 41, of Pittsburgh’s Point Breeze neighborhood to stand trial on a felony charge of resisting and obstructing the police and a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.

The judge dismissed another charge of resisting and obstruction during a preliminary examination Thursday.

It was this dismissal that Wagner’s public relations team was hailing as a victory because it throws out “half of the case against Wagner.”

“The case was outrageously overcharged, with charges entered the day after the (Detroit) solicitor received a letter from Wagner’s attorneys indicating she would be filing suit,” a statement from Wagner said.

Once the “full evidence and information” is presented in court, Wagner’s team said they’re confident she will be “vindicated” on all charges.

Wagner has disputed the way Detroit authorities and hotel officials have described the encounter, which happened during a mid-week getaway that was a post-Valentine’s Day celebration for Wagner and her husband, Khari Mosley.

“Evidence will show that Wagner moved aside from the elevator door when asked by the police officer, continued to ask why her husband was being detained, when the officer then pushed Wagner, and forcefully shoved her to the ground. Wagner did nothing illegal, and the evidence will show that,” Wagner’s statement said.

The statement made no mention about the misdemeanor charges that Mosley faces.

Mosley, 42, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. Because those charges are misdemeanors he wasn’t given a preliminary examination. He is next due in court April 25, when he faces a pretrial conference the same day Wagner is set to be arraigned in Wayne County Circuit Court as her case appears to be headed to trial.

The case also raises questions about when authorities have a right to enter someone’s hotel room, legal experts have told the Tribune-Review.

Wagner’s attorney, Charles Longstreet, argued in court that there’s nothing illegal about drinking in a hotel room, and police didn’t have a legal right to enter Wagner’s room.

Duquesne University Law Professor Bruce Ledewitz said he’s not sure it matters whether the police had a right to enter Wagner’s hotel room.

“You can’t obstruct the police physically regardless of whether they have a legal right to be there,” Ledewitz said. “I mean — even if the police break into your house, you can’t physically interfere with them.”

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.