959 F.3d 678
6th Cir.2020Background
- Rutherford County "Operation Candy Crush" (Feb 12, 2018) targeted 17 small retailers selling CBD; arrests, indictments, and nuisance padlock orders followed; charges later dismissed and expunged.
- At issue were hemp-derived CBD products; Tennessee law exempts industrial hemp/CBD below 0.3% THC, but TBI testing could not determine THC percentage or origin (hemp v. marijuana).
- RCSO undercover purchases and TBI lab reports produced ambiguous results; RCSO officers repeatedly expressed concern about lack of proof of illegality to prosecutors.
- Prosecutors Jennings Jones and John Zimmerman allegedly urged and directed further buys, advised officers CBD was illegal, pressed to accelerate the investigation, and helped precipitate the raids.
- Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh arranged meetings and participated in executing arrests and padlocking orders; plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983/1985 alleging false arrest, unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution, equal protection violations, and civil conspiracy.
- District court denied motions to dismiss based on absolute/quasi-judicial and qualified immunity; Sixth Circuit affirmed denial for prosecutors, affirmed denial for Fitzhugh on Fourth Amendment claims, but reversed as to Fitzhugh on the equal protection claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute prosecutorial immunity (Jones & Zimmerman) | Prosecutors acted investigatively/advised police, not as advocates | Prosecutors had decided to prosecute and thus acted as advocates entitled to absolute immunity | Denied — actions were investigative and pre-judicial (no absolute immunity) |
| Qualified immunity for prosecutors re: Fourth Amendment (false arrest) | Prosecutors pushed arrests without probable cause despite TBI limits and officers' warnings | Reasonable reliance on TBI lab results and prosecutorial judgment | Denied — objectively unreasonable to rely on inconclusive lab reports; right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established |
| Quasi-judicial absolute immunity for Sheriff (execution of padlock orders) | Execution of court orders is judicially linked; but orders were tainted by false affidavits | Enforcement of court orders is quasi-judicial and immune | Denied — cannot extend absolute immunity for carrying out a court order allegedly tainted by false information |
| Qualified immunity for Sheriff re: Fourth Amendment (arrest/seizure/malicious prosecution) | Sheriff knew/subordinates warned that probable cause was lacking but advanced the operation | Officer could reasonably rely on prosecutors and limited-resource enforcement choices | Denied — complaint alleges Fitzhugh was briefed on TBI limits and ignored exculpatory information; reasonable officer would not have concluded probable cause existed |
| Qualified immunity for Sheriff re: Equal Protection (selective prosecution) | Operation selectively targeted small stores to extract fines/forfeitures rather than large retailers | No allegation Fitzhugh participated in discriminatory selection; resource allocation explains targeting | Granted — reversed denial; complaint fails to allege Fitzhugh participated in discriminatory decision-making |
| Conspiracy claim (42 U.S.C. § 1985/§ 1983) | Defendants conspired to deprive plaintiffs of rights by agreeing to push the operation despite lack of probable cause | Conspiracy claim fails if no underlying constitutional violation | Allowed to proceed — underlying violations adequately alleged, so conspiracy claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors when acting as advocates in judicial phase)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (use functional approach; immunity does not cover investigative acts)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (no absolute immunity for legal advice to police in investigative phase)
- Prince v. Hicks, 198 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 1999) (prosecutorial advice to police re: probable cause not absolutely immune)
- Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (prosecutor not immune for directing arrests based on her own probable-cause view)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permitting flexible order of qualified-immunity prongs)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (objectively reasonable belief and qualified immunity for warrant decisions)
- King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2017) (malicious-prosecution theory requires participation in decision to prosecute; grand-jury indictment rebuttable if based on false info)