Johnny Tlapanco v. Jonathan Elges
969 F.3d 638
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- A 14‑year‑old reported being blackmailed on the Kik messaging app by a user whose display name appeared as “anonymous”; exported Kik logs (if expanded) showed the sending username was “anonymousfl.”
- OCSO Deputy Jonathan Elges requested records from Kik and Google; Kik returned data for username “anonymous” tied to an email and two IP addresses, which Google linked to an account in Tlapanco’s name and IPs in New York.
- Elges sought warrants based on that information; NYPD executed a search of Tlapanco’s Brooklyn apartment, seized electronic devices, interviewed him, and later arrested and detained him in New York and Michigan for ~5 weeks.
- Forensic copies of seized devices recovered many images and Kik messages, but none of the victim, and device message timestamps postdated the victim’s harassment; prosecutors dismissed charges after realizing the harassment came from “anonymousfl,” not “anonymous.”
- Undersheriff Michael McCabe had the OCSO copy (mirror) the devices before returning them; Tlapanco sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful search/seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful copying/retention, and municipal liability. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit partially reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elges is entitled to qualified immunity for the search/seizure based on the warrant affidavit | Elges recklessly omitted/failed to verify material exculpatory facts (username "anonymousfl" vs "anonymous" and Kik activity timestamps), so affidavit contained reckless falsehoods/omissions | Elges relied on victim/friends and Kik/Google responses; reliance on a judicial warrant shields him | Reversed as to Elges: a reasonable juror could find reckless omission that was material; qualified immunity denied for search/seizure (but Elges not involved in mirroring claim) |
| Whether Elges is entitled to qualified immunity for arrest/false arrest | No probable cause—devices had no victim images or messages with victim; Tlapanco denied misconduct; warrant procured via reckless omissions | Warrant and sworn complaint supported probable cause; magistrate approved arrest warrant | Reversed as to Elges: jury could find lack of probable cause and reckless omissions; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Elges is entitled to qualified immunity for malicious prosecution (continued detention) | Elges participated in and influenced prosecution by supplying materials that were false/omitted exculpatory facts; prosecution lacked probable cause | Prosecutor authorized charges; action was proper based on the materials supplied | Reversed as to Elges: evidence could show Elges influenced prosecution and lacked probable cause; qualified immunity denied |
| Legality of mirroring/copying devices and retaining forensic mirrors (McCabe) | Copying and retaining forensic mirrors after dismissal is an unlawful search/seizure | No controlling precedent made this conduct clearly unlawful; devices were returned promptly after written order; practice was novel | Affirmed as to McCabe and Oakland County: qualified immunity applies because right was not clearly established; Elges granted summary judgment on mirroring claim for lack of personal involvement |
| Municipal liability for Oakland County (failure to train / policymaker) | County failed to train and McCabe’s decision to mirror created county policy | No deliberate indifference shown; right not clearly established; McCabe lacked final policymaking authority | Affirmed: no municipal liability—no clearly established right and no evidence McCabe was final policymaker |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (discretion to decide qualified immunity prongs)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2017) (pretrial detention claims grounded in Fourth Amendment)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for malicious‑prosecution/continued‑detention claim)
- Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (challenging warrant affidavits for false statements/omissions)
- Butler v. City of Detroit, 936 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2019) (evidence of officer’s knowledge contradicting affidavit supports reckless‑disregard finding)
- Yancey v. Carroll County, 876 F.2d 1238 (6th Cir. 1989) (officer cannot rely on warrant if he knowingly made false statements/omissions)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (municipal failure‑to‑train liability requires deliberate indifference)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (seizure of personal property requires probable cause)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (U.S. 2017) (limits on defining clearly established rights)