Joseph Bailey v. City of Ann Arbor
860 F.3d 382
6th Cir.2017Background
- April 9, 2012: two masked men robbed an Ann Arbor party store; security video shows a gunman wearing a distinctive black-and-white skeleton zip-up sweatshirt whose hood zipped to form a skull, dark vest, blue jeans, and exposed (dark) hands.
- Detectives Stanford and Fitzpatrick later saw a similar skeleton sweatshirt in Joseph Bailey’s bedroom while visiting his mother’s home; Stanford’s affidavit for a search warrant described the suspect consistent with the video and noted an anonymous tip identifying Bailey as an African-American suspect.
- A warrant was issued; officers seized the sweatshirt and other items; Bailey was arrested and later indicted on robbery-related charges (some charges later dropped; he pleaded to resisting arrest).
- Bailey sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting (1) Fourth Amendment violations based on allegedly false statements/omissions in the warrant affidavit, (2) malicious prosecution, and (3) a Monell claim against the City for policy/failure-to-train.
- The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss (qualified immunity and Monell), finding the affidavit contained falsehoods and omissions. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrant / false statements in affidavit (Franks claim) | Stanford’s affidavit falsely described the gunman (hoodie vs. white coat; other discrepancies) and omitted the victim’s differing eyewitness account/relied on an anonymous tip | Affidavit tracked the surveillance video; detectives saw the distinctive skeleton sweatshirt in Bailey’s room; any alleged discrepancies are contradicted by the video or immaterial | Affidavit was not deliberately false; description matched video and detectives’ observations; warrant established probable cause even if contested parts removed — qualified immunity applies to detectives |
| Use of surveillance video in reviewing pleadings | Video was not part of the complaint or was contested and thus shouldn’t be relied on | Video was referenced in the complaint and is integral, covers entire incident, and can be considered at dismissal stage | Court may consider the video; it undermines Bailey’s contradictory allegations and supports defendants’ account |
| Malicious prosecution (absence of probable cause) | Prosecution lacked probable cause because affidavit contained false/misleading statements | Probable cause existed based on video and the discovered distinctive sweatshirt; thus no malicious prosecution | Tied to warrant analysis — because probable cause existed, malicious prosecution claim fails |
| Monell claim against City (policy/failure to train) | City liable because unconstitutional warrant and practices led to harm | City not liable absent an underlying constitutional violation by officers or other municipal policy evidence | Monell claim fails because the underlying Fourth Amendment claim fails; no other basis alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (review of interlocutory qualified immunity appeals)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant affidavit falsehoods/omissions doctrine)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (pleading contradicted by video may be disregarded)
- Hale v. Kart, 396 F.3d 721 (qualified immunity when officers rely on judicially issued warrant; Franks omissions standard)
- United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300 (probable cause and totality-of-the-circumstances for warrants)
- United States v. Brown, 857 F.3d 334 (probable cause: fair probability standard)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- New Eng. Health Care Emps. Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495 (consideration of public records at motion to dismiss)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)