493 F. App'x 731
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ghaith, a US-Jordanian citizen, was arrested for four counts of extortion related to threats against his family.
- Breasbois family members reported threats; Dawn sought to renew Samer’s Jordanian passport.
- Rauschenberger investigated, interviewed Breasboises and Hanan; phone records and supervisor statements cited.
- Ghaith was arrested Sept. 2, 2008, after arriving at the Breasboises’ home; $500,000 bond.
- Prosecution sought to prove extortion; mistrial occurred; charges were dismissed when calls could not be confirmed.
- Ghaith filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging conspiracy to falsely arrest and violate his rights; district court granted summary judgment in favor of state officials and prosecutors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for extortion | Ghaith argues lack of probable cause and false statements. | Rauschenberger asserts probable cause based on multiple reports. | Probable cause existed; officers entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Right to parental integrity | Ghaith claims state actors interfered with parenting rights. | No actionable conduct that shocks the conscience. | No constitutional violation; summary judgment proper. |
| Excessive bail and prosecutorial/officer liability | Bond at $500,000 violated Eighth Amendment; defendants caused it. | State actors not directly involved; prosecutors immune in advocacy role. | No §1983 liability; district court properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause assessed from officer's knowledge at arrest time)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (false statements/omissions must affect probable cause)
- Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (reckless disregard for truth in establishing probable cause)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-prong qualified immunity analysis may be applied in any order)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutors in advocacy role; not always absolute immunity in investigative actions)
- Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2000) (substantive right to raise one’s child acknowledged, scope not clearly established here)