Alice Sussman v. Keith Dalton, 552 F. App'x 488

Dalton investigated a laundromat theft where the victim reported missing money and identified Sussman as a suspect.
Dalton’s police report attributed to witnesses that the video showed the suspect handling the wallet and placing it back, based on portions of the tape and witness accounts.
Dalton reviewed only part of the surveillance tape and later conducted a supplemental interview with Sussman after she challenged the video’s portrayal.
Nine months later, Sussman was arrested and charged; the prosecutor learned of another suspect in the video, leading to the charge’s dismissal.
Sussman sued Dalton and the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable seizure, malicious prosecution, and related due-process and state-law claims.
The district court denied qualified immunity on some claims, prompting Dalton’s appeal on the issue of immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deliberate falsehood vs. reckless disregard	Sussman alleges Dalton knowingly or recklessly misrepresented video facts.	Dalton lacked deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard because his report relied on witness observations and the video sequence.	Dalton entitled to qualified immunity; no substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard.
Materiality to probable cause	Alleged misstatements or omissions were material to probable cause.	Probable cause was supported by the totality of the facts, independent of unviewed tape portions.	No materiality; probable cause existed based on available information.
Duty to review entire video after probable cause is established	Officer had a duty to review the entire tape to avoid errors.	Once probable cause is established, there is no duty to further investigate for exculpatory evidence.	No duty to review entire tape; not required to defeat qualified immunity.
Scope of qualified immunity on federal § 1983 claims	Dalton’s actions violated clearly established rights regarding false statements and omissions.	Dalton’s actions did not violate clearly established law; he acted within constitutional standards.	Dalton entitled to qualified immunity; federal claims reversed/dismissed.

Kinison v. United States, 710 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2013) (hearsay basis for probable cause permissible; no requirement to exhaust every source)
Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1999) (probable cause valid despite incomplete investigation)
Frodge v. City of Newport, 501 F. App’x 519 (6th Cir. 2012) (after probable cause, no duty to investigate further to exculpate)
Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303 (6th Cir. 2000) (probable cause assessed on totality of information)
Hinckman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (probable cause standard in evaluating evidence)
Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (element of falsity and materiality in false-prosecution claim)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause from totality of evidence; innocent behavior can support probable cause)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (limitations on reviewing district court factual findings in qualified immunity context)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (interlocutory review limits in qualified immunity cases)
Romo v. Largen, 723 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 2013) (appellate review of district court findings in immunity disputes)
Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (supplemental jurisdiction considerations post federal claim dismissal)