A Village of Mantua police officer is suing Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski and the Portage County Sheriff’s Office for six alleged legal infractions, including having wrongfully separated her from her child and of having distributed private images from her phone with colleagues.
The lawsuit alleges that on Jan. 1, 2024, Portage County deputies pulled over a vehicle driven by Officer Miranda Brothers, removed her then 5-year-old son, confiscated her cell phone and other electronic devices, transported Brothers to the sheriff’s office for questioning and placed her son in foster care.
Brothers told The Portager that she appeared in court the next morning and regained care of her son. According to court documents, she pleaded not guilty to first-degree misdemeanor charges of child endangerment.
In the complaint from deputies, they alleged that Brothers had left her child in the care of a registered sex offender “for extended periods of time” at the man’s sub shop on Main Street in Mantua.
Main Street Sub Shop was owned by Mantua entrepreneur Sebastian Paratore, who in April 2017 had pleaded guilty to sexual battery (a third-degree felony) and was sentenced to five years in prison. He was released in March 2020 and ordered to serve five years of probation.
Mantua Mayor Tammy Meyer immediately placed Brothers on administrative leave. She remained on leave until shortly after Portage County Municipal Court Judge Mark Fankhauser dismissed the case on July 11, 2024.
Court documents do not detail Fankhauser’s reason for dismissing the case, and he did not return The Portager’s request for comment. Eric Fink, Brothers’ attorney, filed a closing argument on April 22, 2024, citing sworn testimony the prosecution had presented during an April 15 hearing. None of the witnesses, Fink noted, had observed a crime, and the state had failed to produce any evidence supporting its charge.
Brothers remains with the Village of Mantua Police Department.
Brothers’ Dec. 31, 2024, lawsuit also accuses the sheriff’s office of knowing that she would be suspended or terminated from her job, that she could lose her certification as a peace officer, and that their actions could “likely make it impossible for her to be hired at another law enforcement agency.”
As it happened, she was neither suspended nor fired, but her “paid administrative leave” status put Brothers in a state of uncertainty pending the outcome of the state’s case.
Also named in Brothers’ legal filing are the county commissioners, former Detective Kenneth Romo and an unidentified sheriff’s office employee referred to as “John Doe.” Brothers is asking for at least $25,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $500,000 per defendant.
The court filing alleges that Zuchowski “was aware of the actions of his detectives and supported their actions.”
The Portage County Prosecutor’s Office declined comment, citing its policy of not commenting on active cases. Neither Zuchowski nor Fink, who is also the city of Kent’s assistant law director, returned The Portager’s request for comment.
On Jan. 2, Portage County Common Pleas Court Judge Becky Doherty, who was randomly assigned to handle the case, recused herself and asked the Ohio Supreme Court to appoint an out-of-county visiting judge. In her court filing, Doherty wrote that she was recusing herself so as to avoid “the appearance of impropriety.”
The sheriff’s office investigation
Acting on what it characterized at the time as tips from multiple people, court records indicate that the sheriff’s office deployed “at least two” detectives to Mantua to watch Brothers and/or her child outside Paratore’s sub shop on Dec. 7, 2023. (Paratore has since closed that restaurant and now operates Main Street on the River, a separate restaurant.)
Overseeing the investigation was sheriff’s office Detective Mischell Weber, who, according to Brothers’ lawsuit, had previously testified under oath that the complaints were “unfounded” and “not accurate.” Weber is not specifically named in Brothers’ court filing other than to note that the detective had testified she had never personally seen the child having unsupervised contact with a registered sex offender.
One of the detectives, Eric Noall, was positioned so he could see the rear entrance to Paratore’s sub shop. Brothers’ lawsuit states that Noall did not observe the child to have any contact with a registered sex offender, and that he had previously testified that he had not personally observed the child having any contact with “a registered sex offender, ever.”
The second detective, identified as sheriff’s office employee Michael Hanna, was stationed so he could observe the Main Street entrance to the sub shop. According to Brothers’ lawsuit, Hanna testified that he did not see the child having “unsupervised contact with a registered sex offender, ever.”
The lawsuit alleges that had Noall or Hanna observed any behavior to lead him to believe the child was “endangered, they would have taken steps to remove the child immediately.” On Dec. 7, 2023, though, neither detective observed anything that would lead them to conclude the child was endangered, the lawsuit states.
Under oath, Hanna did state that he saw “a registered sex offender” follow the child outside and zip up his coat for him, and that he saw “other adults” supervising “either” the child or “the registered sex offender,” the lawsuit states.
The deputies’ roadside stop of Brothers and her son occurred almost a month later, with the agency alleging that she had knowingly left her child in the care of Paratore “for extended periods of time” at his sub shop on Main Street in Mantua.
Paratore maintained that his girlfriend, Wendy Davis, was the child’s designated babysitter, and that he had never had unsupervised contact with the child. Davis corroborated the statement, telling The Portager she had cared for Brothers’ child for short periods of time at the sub shop for two and a half years, sometimes with Paratore present and sometimes not.
Portage County Chief Probation Officer Hank Gibson told The Portager in 2024 that the terms of Paratore’s probation allow him to have contact with children “in the course of business.” After investigating the alleged incident involving Brothers and her child, the county probation office concluded that Paratore had not violated the terms of his probation.
Taking the child
Brothers’ lawsuit alleges that the sheriff’s office had developed a plan to remove the child from her care: On Jan. 1, 2024, employees allegedly conducted “surveillance,” looking for Brothers’ vehicle as she returned from visiting family over winter break. Deputies saw Brothers’ vehicle on the Ohio Turnpike, followed her and stopped her as she exited the turnpike and got onto state Route 44 near Mantua.
There and then, the lawsuit states, they removed the child from Brothers’ care and placed him in foster care. The officers also confiscated Brothers’ cell phone. She voluntarily provided the deputies with her child’s tablet and agreed to be transported to the sheriff’s office. While there, the lawsuit alleges, Brothers answered all the detectives’ questions.
The next day, the sheriff’s office filed criminal charges against Brothers, requesting a warrant for her arrest and alleging that on Dec. 7, 2023, she had allowed a registered sex offender “to spend extended periods of time alone with the then-5-year-old child.”
Specifically named in Brothers’ lawsuit is former Detective Romo, who on that day was “assigned to provide support to Portage County Job and Family Services.” Romo’s signature appears on the complaint alleging that Brothers had knowingly endangered her child.
Brothers’ lawsuit alleges that Romo had previously testified that he did not observe the registered sex offender having unsupervised contact with the child on Dec. 7 or on any other day.
“The criminal complaint directly contradicts the sworn testimony of the members of the Portage County Sheriff’s Office who personally observed Juvenile A on December 7, 2023,” Brothers’ lawsuit states.
The lawsuit alleges that during an April 15 hearing, no detective provided testimony stating that they had witnessed Brothers’ in violation of Ohio’s child endangerment laws.
Despite that testimony, Brothers’ lawsuit claims that the prosecution continued to pursue criminal charges against her.
Her lawsuit alleges that the sheriff’s office maliciously prosecuted her “by scheming to perform a child removal even after all eyewitnesses determined that the child was not in the unsupervised care of a registered sex offender.”
The sheriff’s office’s own testimony demonstrated that there was no probable cause to support the charge of endangering children, the lawsuit states, noting that the criminal charges against Brothers were subsequently resolved in her favor.
Brothers’ lawsuit also alleges that her constitutional right to parent her own child was violated, and that the deputies were acting under “color of law,” a term that refers to official actions that appear legal but actually aren’t.
The lawsuit alleges that the sheriff’s office is guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress for removing Brothers’ son from her care without probable cause and for prosecuting her without probable cause.
“The Portage County Sheriff’s Office’s conduct of removing Juvenile A from the care of Plaintiff Brothers without evidence of Juvenile A being in imminent danger . . . was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds [of] decency and is intolerable in a civilized community,” the lawsuit alleges.
In prosecuting Brothers without probable cause, the PCSO and Romo are guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress, her lawsuit alleges. The PCSO knew that prosecuting a police officer who worked as a school resource officer would jeopardize Plaintiff Brothers’ career and be particularly damaging to Plaintiff Brothers, the court document states.
Cell phone images
Brothers’ lawsuit also alleges that the sheriff’s office is guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress for disseminating digital images of her.
According to Brothers’ court filing, sheriff’s office employees (or a designee) performed a “forensic investigation” on her confiscated phone. All information on the device was copied onto “another computer database,” and Hanna and other detectives reviewed the device’s contents.
Hanna had allegedly previously told the court that he found no “text messages or other evidence of communication” on the device that would serve as evidence that Brothers had ever left her child “in the care or custody of a registered sex offender,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit alleges that “an unnamed detective” found “private digital images (photographs)” on Brothers’ phone. The images, the lawsuit states, were “private digital images” of Brothers.
“Despite knowing that the digital images were not relevant to any criminal charge, Detective John Doe shared and/or disseminated these digital images within the Portage County Sheriff’s Office and potentially further,” the lawsuit states.
In doing so, the sheriff’s office caused Brothers to suffer “serious mental anguish of a nature no reasonable person could be expected to endure,” her lawsuit states.
Correction: A previous version of this article indicated that the sheriff’s office deployed “at least two” detectives to Mantua to watch Brothers and/or her child outside Paratore’s sub shop on Dec. 7, 2024. This happened Dec. 7, 2023.
Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.