Melanie Cline v. Dale Myers, 495 F. App'x 578

Plaintiffs allege Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations from a raid on 347 South Main Street by Ontario Police and the Allied Special Operations Response Team.
Snavely obtained and executed a knock-and-announce warrant for 347 South Main Street; the warrant affidavit largely related to 618 Burns Street, with no corroboration of the informant’s claim at 347.
Plaintiffs claim excessive force during entry (e.g., Fuller handcuffed and allegedly kicked after arrest) and detention of residents for at least 25 minutes despite Foster not being present.
District court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; Snavely and Myers appeal on the basis of immunity defenses.
There was a dispute about waiver of appeal due to objections; the appellate court nonetheless has jurisdiction to hear arguments about whether the facts show a violation of clearly established law.
The court ultimately affirms the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the federal qualified-immunity issues and the state-law immunity issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of qualified-immunity appeal	Snavely waived review by improper objections.	Waiver should bar review.	Court retains jurisdiction; waivers discussed but merits addressed on appeal.
Whether Snavely’s warrant violated clearly established law	Facts show reckless disregard and material false statements to establish probable cause.	Snavely’s immunity may apply; no clear violation shown.	Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity for Snavely.
Excessive force by Myers during or after the raid	Kick to Fuller, who was in handcuffs and not a suspect, was excessive force.	Force used was reasonable under the circumstances.	There is a genuine issue of material fact on the excessive-force claim; qualified-immunity denial affirmed.
Unreasonable detention duration after discovering no crime	Detention continued for about 25 minutes after Foster was not in the house; right was clearly established.	Detention was permissible under search procedures.	Questions of fact remain about the length and reasonableness of the detention; qualified-immunity denial affirmed.
State-law immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03	Factual questions for recklessness/malice should go to trial.	Summary judgment proper if no genuine issue of malice.	District court proper to deny summary judgment on state-law immunity; affirm.

Brown v. Crowley, 312 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2002) (qualified-immunity waiver requires specific objections)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (interlocutory appeals of qualified-immunity orders)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step test for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (allows addressing questions out of order)
Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154 (6th Cir. 1995) (detention after wrong-house search may violate rights)
Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (continued detention long after risk subsides)
Jernigan v. City of Royal Oak, 202 F. App’x 892 (6th Cir. 2006) (detention of arrestees where no wrongdoing shown)
Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (reckless disregard and materiality required for probable cause)
Washington v. United States, 380 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2004) (evaluating probable cause and affidavit content)
Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Housing Auth., 935 N.E.2d 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (state-immunity determinations hinge on malice/wanton conduct)