Daniel Newman v. Hamburg Township
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23366
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Henry Chappelear was murdered on Feb. 28, 1992; Sgt. Eric Calhoun led the investigation and sought a warrant to arrest Daniel Newman.
- Evidence tying Newman to the crime included ballistics linking Newman’s handgun to one murder weapon, a duffle bag containing that handgun plus a twelve‑gauge shotgun, hair and animal fur consistent with Newman and his dog, and two allegedly stolen walkie‑talkies tied to Newman’s associate Gary Kulpa.
- Witness Ben Masters reported seeing a car like Kulpa’s drive by Chappelear’s home around the relevant time; Calhoun’s affidavit said Masters saw the car at “approximately 5:00 p.m. on or about February 27.”
- A state judge found probable cause, Newman was arrested and convicted; this court later granted Newman habeas relief, concluding the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Newman sued Calhoun under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan law for malicious prosecution, alleging Calhoun deliberately misrepresented Masters’ statement in the warrant affidavit; the district court denied qualified immunity, prompting interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Calhoun deliberately or recklessly misrepresented Masters’ statement in the warrant affidavit | Newman: Calhoun altered timing of Masters’ observation (stated ~5:00 p.m. Feb. 27) to fabricate probable cause | Calhoun: alleged timing discrepancy is minor; affidavit aligns with officers’ recollections and shows no intent to deceive | No deliberate/reckless misrepresentation; discrepancies are minor and insufficient to infer intent |
| Whether the alleged misstatement deprived Newman of probable cause for arrest/prosecution under the Fourth Amendment | Newman: Without the misstatement there was no probable cause | Calhoun: Multiple independent evidentiary facts supplied ample probable cause irrespective of Masters’ timing | Probable cause existed based on ballistics, items in duffle bag, hair/fur, stolen property links, and drug/debt connection; misstatement immaterial |
| Whether qualified immunity protects Calhoun on § 1983 malicious‑prosecution claim | Newman: Constitutional right violated by falsified affidavit | Calhoun: Qualified immunity applies because no clear constitutional violation occurred | Qualified immunity applies; Calhoun entitled to judgment because no constitutional violation shown |
| Whether Newman’s habeas relief (insufficient evidence to convict) defeats probable cause here | Newman: Prior habeas ruling shows lack of probable cause | Calhoun: Criminal burden (beyond reasonable doubt) differs from probable cause standard | Habeas insufficiency does not equal lack of probable cause; different standards govern |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (framework for qualified immunity analysis)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (malicious‑prosecution § 1983 standards)
- Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959) (definition of probable cause)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (probable cause and warrants)
- Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (intent requirement for false‑statement claims)
- Hutsell v. Sayre, 5 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 1993) (minor discrepancies do not establish reckless falsehood)
- Hale v. Kart, 396 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2005) (court decides probable cause where facts undisputed)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (probable cause standard distinct from conviction standard)
- Newman v. Metrish, 543 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 2008) (habeas decision finding insufficient evidence for conviction)
- Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2005) (not every failed prosecution supports malicious‑prosecution suit)
- Matthews v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 572 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. 1998) (elements of Michigan malicious‑prosecution claim)
- Payton v. City of Detroit, 536 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (officer must knowingly swear to false facts to establish malicious prosecution under Michigan law)
Decision: Reversed district court; Calhoun entitled to judgment—no deliberate/reckless falsehood and ample probable cause.