Cheryl Kuslick v. James Roszczewski, 419 F. App'x 589

Kuslick filed §1983 suit alleging false arrest, malicious and retaliatory prosecution against Trooper Roszczewski; district court denied qualified immunity; Roszczewski appeals intermediately.
Roszczewski sought a warrant for Kuslick’s daughter’s handwriting samples; affidavit claimed at least thirty samples were needed for analysis.
During sampling, Kuslick (who is developmentally disabled) sought to monitor events; other troopers ordered her to move or leave; Kuslick resisted some directives.
Roszczewski personally collected samples and later filed a complaint and sought an arrest warrant alleging Kuslick obstructed him, not the other troopers.
A magistrate issued the arrest warrant; Kuslick was arrested; state-court obstruction charge later dismissed as not blocking the warrant’s service.
The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; on appeal, the issue is whether the allegedly falsified statement was material to probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Materiality of the false statement	Kuslick argues the falsehood linking obstruction to Roszczewski was material to probable cause.	Roszczewski contends the other stated facts provided probable cause independent of the falsehood.	Materiality is a jury question for non-qualified claims; for qualified immunity it is court-determined; the court finds it potentially material.
Probable cause if false statement omitted	Absent the false claim, probable cause may be lacking; the warrant ties to Roszczewski personally.	There was probable cause based on Kuslick's refusals to Tess move/leave, independent of the false claim.	Court concludes the warrant’s nexus to Roszczewski’s obstruction could be insufficient without the false statement; materiality weighs in Preferring court decision on this point.

Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (establishes two-part test for false statements in warrants: materiality to probable cause and deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard)
Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1989) (jury decides if magistrate would have issued warrant without false statement)
Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2007) (officers may be liable for false statements that are material to probable cause)
Avery v. King, 110 F.3d 12 (6th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes warrant-based false statements from warrantless arrests for qualified immunity purposes)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework described; earlier approach discussed)