Randy Alman v. Kevin Reed
703 F.3d 887
6th Cir.2013Background
- Alman and Barnes, partners, were involved in an undercover Westland Police/Wayne County operation at Hix Park to investigate lewd conduct; Alman was arrested during the decoy encounter with Deputy Reed after a brief touching of Reed’s crotch.
- There is a factual dispute over the nature of Alman’s touch (brush vs. grab) and whether it occurred in a manner suggesting force, concealment, or surprise under CSC4.
- Alman was charged in state court with CSC4, solicitation/accosting, and two Westland municipal offenses (disorderly person, battery); the state charges were later dismissed or not pursued.
- Barnes’s car, driven to the park by Alman, was impounded; Barnes later redeemed the vehicle for a $900 fee after notices of nuisance abatement and impoundment.
- Plaintiffs filed § 1983 claims alleging Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violations and state-law malicious prosecution; district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on many counts.
- On appeal, the circuit reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for further proceedings, holding lack of probable cause for Alman’s arrest on several charges and addressing qualified immunity and other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for CSC4 | Arman’s touching could not establish force or concealment. | Touching constitutes force/surprise under CSC4. | No probable cause for CSC4; reversed for this charge. |
| Probable cause for accosting | Alman’s actions not an invitation to a lewd act; no objective evidence of intent. | Officers could interpret actions as lewd solicitation. | No probable cause for solicitation/accosting; reversed for this charge. |
| Probable cause for Westland disorderly person | Indecent exposure not shown; ordinance requires indecent/obscene conduct. | Ordinance tracks state statute and could cover nearly any indecent conduct. | No probable cause; reversed for this charge. |
| Qualified immunity for Sgt. Swope | Arrest violated clearly established rights; lack of probable cause. | Reasonable belief supported by Reed’s statements. | Swope not entitled to qualified immunity; verdict against him affirmed on lack of probable cause. |
| Seizure of Barnes's vehicle | Vehicle seizure invalid if arrest lacked probable cause. | Seizure permitted by nuisance abatement statutes with probable cause for the offense. | Reversed; seizure invalid where arrest lacked probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause inquiry hinges on facts known to officer)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (probable cause describes reasonable belief of crime)
- Hale v. Kart, 396 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2005) (probable-cause questions for summary judgment; jury if disputed)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; material facts must be undisputed)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (deliberate indifference; failure-to-train standard for §1983)
- Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (clearly established rights; qualified immunity analysis)
- Ross v. Duggan, 402 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2004) (vehicle seizure during arrest; nuisance abatement context)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment burden; credibility not assessed on motion)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework (now modified))