938 F. Supp. 2d 669
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Patrons at CAID during Funk Night May 31, 2008 detained, searched, and charged with loitering in a place of illegal occupation under City Code § 38-5-1.
- CAID operated without liquor license; after-hours sales observed; surveillance confirmed by Yost and Buglo prior to May 31 raid.
- Anticipatory Search Warrant authorized searches of CAID premises and certain related property but not patrons.
- Vehicles driven to CAID were seized under Michigan Nuisance Abatement statute; several patrons’ cars seized and later returned or stolen.
- Plaintiffs allege arrests, searches, seizures, and prosecutions violated Fourth Amendment rights and were undertaken pursuant to city-wide policies and customs (Monell).
- Court addresses motions for summary judgment by City of Detroit and individual officers on counts including unlawful detention, unlawful search, unlawful seizure, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and due process challenges to disorderly conduct and nuisance abatement statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest under the disorderly conduct ordinance | Kaiser et al. had no knowledge CAID was unlicensed; mere presence not probable cause | Officers had probable cause based on CAID’s illegal operation and lack of license | No probable cause; arrests unlawful |
| Monell liability for city-wide custom or practice | City policy/custom caused detentions, searches, and vehicle forfeitures | No persistent policy; no moving force behind officers’ actions | Monell liability established; city liable for custom supporting depriving rights |
| Excessive force claims against officers | Officers used excessive force during detentions/searches | Defendants did not identify specific officers or violate clearly established law | Excessive force claims dismissed; Monell liability not extended for these claims |
| Malicious prosecution claim | Prosecutions proceeded without probable cause and harmed plaintiffs | Charges were dismissed; not viable for malicious prosecution | Malicious prosecution claim fails; prosecutions dismissed |
| Due process under disorderly conduct and nuisance abatement statutes | statutes applied unconstitutionally and vague without knowledge mens rea | Statutes properly applied with knowledge element and reasonable basis | Due process claims denied; statutes with knowledge element upheld or not actionable as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tombs, 472 Mich. 446 (Mich. 2005) (Mens rea required for silence in statute; prevents over-criminalization)
- Kowalski v. Michigan, 489 Mich. 488 (Mich. 2011) (Infer guilty knowledge when statute silent on mens rea)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (Two-step qualified immunity analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (Qualified immunity requires clearly established rights)
- Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (Mere presence at scene not probable cause)
- Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Probable cause not to detain everyone at location)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (Nuisance abatement forfeiture limits)
- Ross v. Duggan, 402 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2004) (Vehicle seizure linked to underlying offenses; distinguishable)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (Seizure requires meaningful interference with possessory interest)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (Municipal liability for custom or policy)