Bach v. Drerup, 3:11-cv-00317

Bach filed five § 1983 claims against Drerup and Markowski arising from the Walgreens robbery investigation and subsequent arrest/prosecution.
Walls provided detailed statements implicating Bach; her statements were used to obtain probable cause and charges against Bach.
Bach was arrested without a warrant on September 3, 2009, based on Walls’ statements and Peyton’s identification, and Bach was later indicted.
Defendants sought summary judgment; Bach moved to strike an unauthenticated Walls note offered in reply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for arrest	Walls’ credibility and height discrepancy negate probable cause.	Walls' statements plus eyewitness identification provided probable cause.	Probable cause existed; Drerup and Markowski entitled to judgment.
Probable cause for prosecution/indictment	Lack of exculpatory evidence and challenged grand-jury process undermined probable cause.	Grand jury determination and presented evidence established probable cause.	Probable cause supported prosecution; no denial of probable cause shown.
Exculpatory evidence and process integrity	Exculpatory details (Walls’ credibility, alibi, height) were not properly presented.	Evidence presented to prosecutors supported the case; no withholding shown.	No genuine issues; exculpatory evidence not properly withheld; process integrity not compromised.
First Amendment retaliation	Defendants harassed/slandered Bach in retaliation for this suit.	No evidence of retaliatory conduct by Drerup or Markowski.	No genuine retaliation evidence; claim failed.
Qualified immunity	Defendants violated clearly established rights.	Probable-cause analysis supports entitlement to qualified immunity.	Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment appropriate.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework; movant bears initial burden)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness for qualified immunity)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force and reasonable/test framework for Fourth Amendment claims)
Parsons v. City of Pontiac, 533 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment framework and probable cause considerations in Fourth Amendment cases)
InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1989) (evidence and summary judgment standards)
Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2000) (probable cause and grand-jury related considerations)