Pisoni v. McCord
2018 Ohio 64
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 10, 2015, Officer Christopher McCord stopped an SUV-driven van for traffic concerns; Jaclyn Pisoni (passenger/driver of another SUV) approached the scene and exchanged profanities with McCord while her child was in the car.
- McCord told Pisoni she was parked illegally and ordered her to leave; Pisoni flipped him off and said “f* you.” McCord told her she was under arrest for obstructing his investigation; a struggle followed, a "come-along" hold and alleged pain-compliance were used, and both fell to the ground.
- Pisoni was initially charged with obstruction (felony) and resisting arrest; the grand jury declined the felony obstruction charge and returned an indictment for misdemeanor disorderly conduct; she was later acquitted at trial.
- Pisoni sued McCord, Chief Griffith, and the City of Alliance for false arrest, excessive force (42 U.S.C. § 1983), malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil-rights violations, and spoliation; the trial court granted summary judgment for Griffith and the City and denied portions of McCord’s summary judgment motion based on immunity.
- The trial court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether McCord acted maliciously, in bad faith, or recklessly (R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)) in (1) false arrest, (2) excessive force (qualified immunity), and (3) malicious prosecution, and thus denied McCord immunity on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pisoni) | Defendant's Argument (McCord) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (obstruction charge) | McCord arrested her in retaliation for protected speech; no probable cause for obstruction | McCord had reasonable, objective basis to arrest for obstruction given her conduct and disruption of his investigation | Genuine fact issues exist about whether arrest was wanton/reckless and whether probable cause existed; immunity denial affirmed |
| Excessive force (§1983 / qualified immunity) | McCord used unreasonable, excessive force; she did not resist and was first grabbed | McCord acted reasonably under department use-of-force policy given alleged dynamic resistance; qualifies for qualified immunity | Credible disputes over sequence and force create triable fact issues; qualified immunity not resolved on summary judgment |
| Malicious prosecution | Prosecution was instituted out of malice tied to her insults; lack of probable cause for the felony obstruction charge | Indictment (though on a lesser offense) supports probable cause; presumption of probable cause applies | Genuine issues exist whether probable cause (for the felony) and malice were present; immunity denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. City of Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (defines "reckless" standard for R.C. 2744 immunity)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive-force claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ash v. Ash, 72 Ohio St.3d 520 (Ohio 1995) (malicious-prosecution elements)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable-cause inquiry standard)
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2007) (order denying statutory immunity is final and appealable)