111 F. Supp. 3d 797
W.D. Mich.2015Background
- On March 3, 2013, Plaintiff openly carried an FNP-45 pistol in a leg holster on a public sidewalk in Grand Rapids; a resident called 911 reporting a man in camouflage with a gun.
- Officer Moe responded, followed Plaintiff, exited his cruiser with his firearm drawn, ordered Plaintiff to the ground, handcuffed him, removed and unloaded the pistol, then sat Plaintiff in the cruiser while running a LEIN check; the contact lasted ~13 minutes and Plaintiff was neither arrested nor charged.
- Plaintiff was lawfully entitled under Michigan law to open-carry; GRPD officers had been given MSP Bulletin No. 86 and received training about open carry.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth, Second, and First Amendments; the City was sued under Monell theories including inadequate training; state-law claims (Mich. Constitution, assault/battery, false imprisonment) were also pled.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Officers Moe and Johnston and the City, holding (among alternative grounds) that Moe’s seizure was justified as a community-caretaking/exigent or reasonable Terry stop, and that individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the Second and First Amendment claims; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the seizure a Fourth Amendment violation? | Deffert: detention and disarming were unlawful because he was openly carrying legally and posed no threat. | Officers: seizure lawful as community-caretaking/exigent or reasonable investigatory Terry stop; brief and limited. | Court: No Fourth Amendment violation; seizure justified under community-caretaking/exigent or Terry standards. |
| Are officers entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claim? | Deffert: officers violated clear rights by detaining and disarming him. | Officers: reasonable officers could disagree; not a clearly established violation. | Court: Qualified immunity applies to Officer Moe (and Johnston given non-participation). |
| Did officers violate a clearly established Second Amendment right to openly carry? | Deffert: right to bear arms for self-defense extends outside the home; open carry is protected. | Officers: scope of Second Amendment outside the home was not clearly established in March 2013; Heller/McDonald do not settle open-carry. | Court: Right was not clearly established; officers entitled to qualified immunity; City liable only if underlying violation—none found. |
| Was Plaintiff engaged in First Amendment expressive conduct and protected from brief detention? | Deffert: carrying was partially symbolic speech to raise awareness and rally support. | Officers: no particularized/message-likely-to-be-understood conduct; even if speech, briefly detaining to ensure safety is justified under O’Brien. | Court: Plaintiff failed to show protected expressive conduct or that interference was unjustified; summary judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference causally linked to the violation)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may make brief investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense but is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is incorporated against the states)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment judged objectively by facts known to officers)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (standards for municipal liability based on failure to train)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may address qualified immunity by first considering whether the right was clearly established)
- Embody v. Ward, 695 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012) (openly carrying a conspicuous, loaded weapon in a public setting can justify investigatory detention)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent officers)