Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Township, 522 F. App'x 322

Residents complained Waterford church music was loud; police questioned worshipers and pastors about volume.
Bedell, as prosecuting attorney, threatened misdemeanor warrants and issued complaint letters against band members; no charges filed.
A series of police visits in Oct 2007 culminated in warnings and notices but no enforcement actions at the church.
District court granted some immunity-related rulings and dismissed several First and Fourth Amendment claims on standing or qualified immunity grounds.
On appeal, court affirms in part and reverses in part; issues include qualified immunity for Bedell, conspiracy claims, standing, and Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment theories.
Plaintiffs seek § 1983 relief for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, plus injunctive/declaratory relief and damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Bedell's immunity status	Bedell lacked immunity for injunctive relief and damages.	Bedell is entitled to qualified immunity and possibly absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts.	Bedell not entitled to absolute immunity; official-capacity claims dismissed; injunctive/declaratory relief against Bedell in official capacity proper.
Conspiracy claims viability	Defendants conspired to violate First and Fourth Amendments.	Intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine or lack of plausibility bars claims.	Conspiracy claims insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly; dismissed.
Equal Protection / selective enforcement	Waterford selectively enforced its ordinance against Faith Baptist Church for religious music.	No evidence of discriminatory purpose or effect; claims fail.	No plausible equal protection claim; no evidence of disparate treatment shown.
Standing for First Amendment claims	Church and leaders have standing due to chilling effect and threatened prosecutions.	No concrete injury or ongoing enforcement; standing lacking.	Plaintiffs have standing due to credible threat of prosecution and chill on speech.
Fourth Amendment claims and their status on appeal	Detentions and seizures violated Fourth Amendment rights.	No actionable seizure or expectation of privacy violations; district court correct.	Fourth Amendment claims largely not properly before court; issues dismissed/not appealed; some aspects remanded.

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor's investigative functions not entitled to absolute immunity)
Hampton v. Chicago, 484 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1973) (investigative functions by prosecutors and police; immunity considerations)
ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) (standing and chilling effects in First Amendment challenges)
Morrison v. Bd. of Educ., 521 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2008) (standing and injury-in-fact in First Amendment contexts)
Grendell v. Ohio Supreme Court, 252 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2001) (imminent chill as actionable injury in First Amendment standing)
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Lake Brokers, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing and redressability; mootness considerations)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (standing; injury must be concrete and particularized)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; threadbare recitals insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
United States v. Pearce, 531 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted)