Alan Thibault v. Edward Wierszewski
695 F. App'x 891
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., Thibault, driving an 18‑wheel tractor‑trailer, struck a median curb while attempting a turn; officers stopped him for equipment/traffic violations.
- Officer Wierszewski observed physical/demeanor signs (window down, loud radio, unlit cigarette, flushed face, slow speech, shaking) but smelled no alcohol and saw no containers.
- Wierszewski administered eight field sobriety tests (including walk‑and‑turn, one‑leg‑stand, HGN); some tasks were performed well, others were contested as improperly administered or imperfectly performed.
- Breath and later blood and urine tests showed no alcohol or detectable drugs; charges were dismissed and Thibault sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for arrest without probable cause.
- The district court denied Wierszewski summary judgment on qualified immunity, finding genuine factual disputes (supported by officer video and expert testimony) for a jury to resolve; Wierszewski appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of probable cause to arrest for DUI/OWI | Thibault: officer lacked objectively reasonable probable cause; tests were improperly administered and video/experts show sobriety | Wierszewski: observed demeanor and poor performance on sobriety tests gave at least a fair probability of impairment | Denied appeal jurisdiction on merits — district court found genuine factual disputes about probable cause that must go to a jury |
| Qualified immunity and interlocutory appealability | Thibault: factual disputes prevent resolution of immunity at summary judgment | Wierszewski: even accepting plaintiff's facts, the undisputed physical/balance failures justified reasonable belief in probable cause and raise a legal question reviewable on appeal | Majority: appeal presents fact‑intensive disputes, so no jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity; appeal dismissed. (Dissent would hear legal inference challenge.) |
| Reliance on field sobriety tests to support probable cause | Thibault: many tests were administered improperly; expert says performance was satisfactory; subsequent negative lab tests undermine officer's testimony | Wierszewski: failure on field tests (and demeanor) reliably supports probable cause; prior case law supports reliance on such tests | Court: disputed administration and interpretation of tests (and video/expert evidence) create material factual issues for jury, precluding interlocutory review |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (probable cause standard for arrest)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (qualified immunity interlocutory appeal principles)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits appeals from denials of qualified immunity when disputes are fact‑based)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence may blatantly contradict plaintiff's version of events)
- Green v. Throckmorton, 681 F.3d 853 (officer may be entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable belief exists even if ultimately erroneous)
- Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 436 (denial of qualified immunity treated as collateral order for appeal purposes)