643 F. App'x 589
6th Cir.2016Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., Officer Lorenz stopped Bailey after observing him exit a club and drive around an unmarked median; Lorenz smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/watery eyes, and asked about drinking.
- Lorenz performed field sobriety tests: Bailey exhibited alleged nystagmus (other balance tests passed); Bailey refused a preliminary breath test and initially said he would not take a chemical test until he spoke with an attorney.
- Lorenz arrested Bailey, advised that refusal would result in license suspension, transported him to the hospital, obtained a warrant for a blood draw, and Bailey’s BAC tested .07; the initial license-suspension hearing suspended his license, but a rehearing (after in-car video availability) found the refusal cured and rescinded suspension.
- Bailey filed § 1983 claims against Lorenz and the City of Howell alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (unlawful stop/arrest, unlawful blood draw, malicious prosecution, false testimony/due process, illegal license seizure, and seeking injunctive relief re: median/signage).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, concluding there was probable cause for arrest, the blood-warrant affidavit (after excluding any proven false material) still supported probable cause, and no due-process or malicious-prosecution violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful arrest / probable cause | Bailey argued facts (passed balance tests, confusion about median, video inconsistencies) precluded probable cause for OUI arrest | Lorenz argued totality (time, odor, bloodshot eyes, admission of drinking, refusal of PBT, driving conduct) supported probable cause | Probable cause existed as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Validity of warrant / blood draw (Franks/omissions) | Bailey argued affidavit contained false statements/omissions (omitted passed balance tests and later consent) that defeated probable cause for warrant | Lorenz argued affidavit still contained sufficient facts (time, odor, nystagmus, initial refusal) to establish probable cause even if false material set aside | After excluding any proven false material and adding omitted facts, remaining affidavit supported probable cause for blood draw; search constitutional |
| Malicious prosecution (criminal and administrative) | Bailey contended there was lack of probable cause for criminal prosecution and for administrative license-suspension proceeding | Defendants relied on probable cause for criminal charges and that Bailey unreasonably refused the chemical test supporting license suspension | Malicious-prosecution claims fail: probable cause supported both prosecution and administrative suspension decision (objectively reasonable basis to believe Bailey refused and refusal was unreasonable) |
| False testimony / Due Process | Bailey alleged Lorenz lied at the administrative hearing about refusal and testimony was materially false, depriving him of due process | Defendants argued Lorenz’s testimony was not false or merely incomplete; Bailey had opportunity to cross-examine and present testimony; absolute witness immunity available if necessary | Summary judgment for defendants: testimony not shown to be false as a matter of law; no due-process violation (alternative immunity not reached) |
| Seizure of license (Fourth Amendment) | Bailey argued seizure was unreasonable because he was confused and later agreed to test | Defendants noted Michigan law required immediate confiscation after an unreasonable refusal; probable cause for refusal supported seizure | Seizure lawful: undisputed facts gave probable cause and state law required confiscation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Prospective injunctive relief (median/signage) | Bailey sought injunction to remove/move median or post signage to prevent future confusion/harm | Defendants argued Bailey lacked standing to seek prospective relief | Denied for lack of standing — no real or immediate threat of future injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2003) (probable cause standard for arrests)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for proving false statements or reckless omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (Franks-type analysis and omissions relevance for § 1983 false-arrest claims)
- Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1988) (probable cause requires probability, not prima facie showing)
- Kinlin v. Kline, 749 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) (refusal to submit to field sobriety/breath tests can weigh in probable-cause analysis)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requirements for injunctive relief)
- Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp. v. S. Council of Indus. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 203 F.3d 926 (6th Cir. 2000) (district court may enter summary judgment sua sponte with notice and opportunity to respond)