171 F. Supp. 3d 605
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- On May 15, 2013 Jeremiah Chesney entered a crowded Michigan Secretary of State office carrying a pistol openly on his hip and later returned with a backpack; a staff member called police reporting a person with a gun possibly in a backpack acting suspiciously.
- Four Jackson police officers responded and, after observing Chesney matching the report and armed, asked him to step outside for questioning; Chesney refused and the officers forcibly escorted him out and seized his pistol during the struggle.
- Outside, Chesney refused to produce identification initially; after several minutes he produced his concealed-carry license; officers conducted checks and learned the gun was registered to him.
- Officers arrested Chesney for resisting/obstructing a police officer; he was held two days and the charge was later dismissed by the prosecutor.
- Chesney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Second, and Fourth Amendment violations, and asserted state-law claims (assault & battery, false imprisonment, replevin); defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding (1) no First Amendment expressive conduct shown or retaliation proven; (2) Second Amendment right to openly carry outside the home was not clearly established; (3) officers had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop and probable cause to arrest for resisting/obstructing; state-law claims failed (immunity/probable cause/replevin prerequisites).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open carry constituted First Amendment protected expressive conduct and whether arrest was retaliatory | Chesney: openly carrying firearm was expressive advocacy of open-carry law and arrest was retaliation | Officers: mere open carry without communicative elements is not protected speech and no evidence officers were motivated by expressive activity | Court: No evidence of intent or that message would be understood; no retaliation shown — summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether seizure of pistol and related conduct violated the Second Amendment | Chesney: officers violated his right to bear arms outside the home by seizing pistol | Officers: right to carry outside home was not clearly established; qualified immunity applies | Court: Second Amendment protection outside home not clearly established in the Sixth Circuit at the time; qualified immunity for officers |
| Whether officers’ removal of Chesney from office and force used violated Fourth Amendment (illegal seizure) | Chesney: officers exceeded scope of consensual encounter and Terry stop by forcibly removing him | Officers: dispatcher report, crowded office, report of a gun-in-backpack and Chesney’s visible firearm created reasonable suspicion; limited force to move him was lawful | Court: Under totality, reasonable suspicion existed; limited force to remove him was reasonable within Terry; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether arrest for resisting/obstructing lacked probable cause (false arrest/false imprisonment) | Chesney: arrest lacked probable cause because he had lawful gun and encounter was consensual | Officers: Chesney repeatedly refused lawful directives, resisted being escorted, and refused ID, giving probable cause under local ordinance/statute; qualified immunity in any event | Court: Facts gave probable cause to arrest for resisting/obstructing; state-law false imprisonment and assault/battery claims fail (probable cause and governmental immunity); replevin dismissed (no demand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (government officials entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established rights violated)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (conduct may be protected as speech when intended to convey a particularized message and likely understood)
- Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (test for expressive conduct under First Amendment)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms in the home; rights are not unlimited)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officers may conduct investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step inquiry and district court discretion)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division, 785 F.3d 1128 (Sixth Circuit: public open-carry alone does not necessarily justify disarm/stop; context matters)
- Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577 (qualified immunity where no court had held Second Amendment encompassed carrying in state parks; context can create reasonable suspicion)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (states may require suspect to identify himself during a valid Terry stop)