545 F. App'x 474
6th Cir.2013Background
- Bach was arrested by Kettering, Ohio police on August 21, 2009 for a Walgreens robbery, based on an incident report and witness statements.
- Detectives Schomburg and Drerup interviewed Walls on September 1, 2009; Walls described Bach and provided negative-to-positive details linking him to the Walgreens robbery.
- Drerup compared Walls’s statements to Bach’s criminal history and a Walgreens employee’s description, and prepared a photo lineup featuring Bach.
- Bach was arrested on September 3, 2009 after Walls’s statements and a later lineup; Bach consented to a home search and a polygraph, which yielded no incriminating evidence.
- A third Walgreens employee identified Bach in a lineup; at the preliminary hearing, this employee’s identification supported probable cause for bind over to the grand jury, resulting in an indictment.
- Walls later executed a November 13, 2009 sworn affidavit recanting her September 1 statement; the district court struck this affidavit as lacking basis, and Bach’s trial ended in a hung jury with dismissal thereafter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel on probable cause | Bach argues collateral estoppel should not foreclose challenges to probable cause since the issue concerns the integrity of the evidence. | Defendants contend the state-court probable-cause finding should bar relitigation in §1983 action. | Bach is collaterally estopped from relitigating probable cause. |
| Falsified or coerced Walls statement | Bach asserts Walls’s statement was falsified or coerced to create probable cause. | Defendants assert Walls’s recantation does not undermine the original probable-cause basis. | No evidence shows coercion/falsification; probable cause remains intact. |
| Existence of probable cause | Bach contends Walls’s initial statements tainted the identification and arrest. | Defendants maintained there was probable cause based on Walls’s information and identification. | Probable cause to arrest and prosecute existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (collateral estoppel limits relitigation where prior findings are not based on falsified statements)
- Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2007) (state-court finding on probable cause can bar subsequent §1983 claims when not based on falsified evidence)
- Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2001) (false information to establish probable cause can be basis for malicious-prosecution claims)
- Arnold v. Wilder, 657 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2011) (probable cause defeats false-arrest claim and undermines malicious-prosecution claim)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (probable cause required to sustain false-arrest action)
- Parsons v. City of Pontiac, 533 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2008) (probable-cause determination evaluated from perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause standard for arrest)