Brooks v. Rothe

Before GILMAN, MOORE and Circuit below, forth AFFIRM judgment we Judges; PHILLIPS, Judge.* District the district court. Tennessee,

*The Phillips, Honorable Thomas W. sitting by designation. Judge States District for the Eastern District The first arrive at SafePlace I. BACKGROUND Lieutenant after Brooks’s call was background A. Factual Axe, Michigan Rothe of the David Bad shift attendant Brooks worked Department. Rothe came to the Police SafePlace, a shelter County the Huron officer, door, identified himself as a of domestic violence. Safe- for victims response he was in to and said that there manual, procedures and policy Place’s call. He to enter the shel- the 911 asked received, the which Brooks had stressed ter, him in to Brooks to let but refused confidentiality. It importance of resident un- give any him information. Brooks felt to their su- employees contact instructed giving any Rothe information comfortable pervisors personnel if law enforcement he was not with the ambulance. shelter, stated access to the and wanted inci- suspicious, light past She was be conducted searches must “[a]ll to locate attempting dents of husbands authority of a warrant.” upon the shelter, at the as to whether their wives 8,May early morning hours of In the Rothe, a police was indeed officer. Rothe the work- employee Brooks was sole frustrated, growing to Brooks explained ing Her shift was scheduled at SafePlace. a first needed responder that he was and midnight to to a.m. At around last from building. come into the After Brooks a.m., 4:30 Brooks went outside with one him, Rothe not again refused admit (whom the refer the defendants residents pursue matter further and left Safe- MR), MR cigarette. to smoke a Place. difficulty pain, had of back complained Shortly after the am- departure, Rothe’s sitting, help and needed walking and arrived, and para- bulance Brooks let the At a few the stairs. breakfast climbing again into the medics shelter. Brooks later, Brooks that MR was hours noticed Kain while the were at- paramedics called walking and had trouble uncoordinated MR in tending get per- order to Kain’s standing. grew Brooks concerned copy paramed- MR’s for the mission file health and asked repeatedly about MR’s conversation, During this Kain was ics. MR her if needed medical attention. she that Brooks let informed had refused to treatment, but when she declined to seek enter the shelter. Kain testified could up, staggered tried to stand fine, you told Brooks can let that she “He’s not walk. Brooks, however, that she him in.” denied kept MR eye resident Another told Kain to admit Rothe. was ever to the to call telephone while Brooks went time, At about the same Brooks received Kain, Amy Managing of Safe- Director from Elizabeth Weisen- call defendant Kain told supervisor. and Brooks’s Place bach, who identified as a herself regarding to defer to MR’s wishes Brooks prosecutor assistant and a Safe- returned to medical treatment. Brooks Place board member. de- Weisenbach speak urged with MR and her to seek at manded information about the events eventually agreed. MR medical attention. yelled Brooks for not the shelter and a.m., called 911 Shortly after building. enter letting Rothe report that there a woman Safe- any informa- give refused to of back who needed complaining pain Place hung up phone. tion and waiting medical attention. While forthcoming with infor- arrive, Brooks was ambulance to Brooks checked at- paramedics for the who were at the mation MR told the other residents to MR. The observed happening. tending paramedics what was shelter drooling and unresponsive dispatcher that another 911 MR was had learned symptoms paramedics that her were consis- from the at the and noted scene that call drug Additionally, tent with a overdose. involved a drug SafePlace over- approached an unknown one of dose rather a back injury. resident than The dis- paramedics paramedic patcher told the also told Bodis’s wife that dis- plastic bag patcher that she had seen MR a video seen made (Soma Ativan containing pills. paramedics Soma and at SafePlace. relaxer, powerful is a and Ativan is muscle Upon call learning benzodiazepine, type used to overdose, a potential drug involved Police disorder.) anxiety

treat The resident did Chief Bodis called defendant Mark J. Ga- actually not know if hadMR taken the ertner, prosecuting the attorney for Huron drugs. MR to hospital was taken County. explained Bodis the situation to shortly thereafter. Gaertner, who told him that SafePlace left, paramedics After the MR’s room- needed to be and investigated. secured (JL) Next, mate at SafePlace told Brooks that president Bodis called the of the SafePlace, she had seen MR take three pills white board of him informed of the incident, plastic gave from a JL bag. empty and expressed displeasure that Brooks, plastic bag to who up locked it in Lieutenant Rothe had not been admitted. the cabinet reserved for the pre- residents’ Bodis called back him apprise Gaertner to (The scription drugs. residents call president were not his with the board and keep allowed to express medication their shared safety his concerns about the bedrooms.) became Brooks concerned at the SafePlace residents not because he did point this hadMR suffered from a know what type drug was involved overdose, but did not report this who overdose or continued anyone information to else. At They least access to one it. discussed whether MR, child had shared a room with which warrant required left the child at exposure continued risk of justified a entry circumstances warrantless to drugs in that room. Brooks encouraged because of the potential destruction of evi- the other retreat residents to to their dence bed- and concern for the residents’ safe- rooms, which ty. most did. Gaertner instructed Bodis that a war- rant necessary was not and that immediate time, Around this Kain called SafePlace action appropriate prevent de- and asked if Brooks could work an extra struction of evidence. hour, a.m., until 9 Kain was run- ning late. a.m., Brooks then told Kain about At about 8:30 Weisenbach arrived the call Weisenbach, she had from received at police and station met with Bodis but Kain told not to worry Brooks about it. and Rothe. Rothe and Weisenbach then departed plan, for SafePlace. Their which Meanwhile, after Brooks refused to let they Bodis, discussed for SafePlace, him enter Lieutenant Rothe Rothe to let ask to be in to conduct called Weisenbach and told her that he had police and, failed, if investigation been denied to SafePlace. Weisen- position Weisenbach to use as a board bach responded that she would take care member prosecutor and to get inside. of the matter. Rothe then contacted his possessed Neither a search warrant. boss, Bodis, defendant Chief Police John and reported happened what had at the When Rothe and Weisenbach arrived later, SafePlace, shelter. A short time Bodis received refused Brooks to let them en- a call wife, ter, from supervisor his was a claiming that it was policy SafePlace’s at the 911 center. Bodis’s wife not told him to let law enforcement personnel enter Amendments. Brooks also asserted state- explained several building. Rothe gain battery, and false he needed to law claims assault to Brooks that times arrest, imprisonment, and investigate possible gross neg- crime false and access to in, defendants, he not let him individual ligence against Brooks would if liability arrest. The place sought impose her under vicarious would have this diverge of the parties municipal defendants based against accounts Weisenbach point. Brooks the acts of the upon individuals. open door attempted push

physically 2007, the is- In October district court inside, forcing Brooks to thus step (a) concluding sued an order door. Rothe’s step away a claim for excessive could not sustain denials report states that verbal (b) force, Michigan permitted law a convic- became obstruction if the resisting police tion for even her hands on Weisenbach’s put (c) unlawful, being order resisted was ab- In his keep her of SafePlace. out chest immunity pro- prosecutorial solute deposition, stated (d) Gaertner, tect Weisenbach and con- first and that the went into SafePlace summary judgment municipal for the de- heated,” men- a “little but did not got flict grounds on municipal-immunity fendants Brooks any physical tion contact between The appropriate. was not court then and Weisenbach. supplemental briefing on two is- sought attempting Weisenbach While “(1) the legal sues: basis for [Brooks’s] SafePlace, Rothe conferred gain entry to any, if standing, asserting for a violation of Bodis, spoke in turn telephone Fourth rights under the Amendment Gaertner, Bodis, and with Gaertner. Rothe based on Defendant and Weisen- Brooks be all should felt (2) shelter; entry bach’s into the and accordingly arrested arrested. cause, for any, factual basis if ob- resisting two of Brooks on counts a entry investigate into the shelter tak- structing a officer. Brooks was purported drag overdose.” resident’s day later that jail en to and was released receiving requested supple- After physical injuries no on She suffered bond. briefing, a mental the district issued as a of the events result disposing of the It con- final order case. that Rothe never threatened later testified standing to chal- cluded In any sort of force. her with -entry into lenge Rothe and Weisenbach’s 2006, a filed August Gaertner Motion/Or- SafePlace, granted summary-judgment but Prosequi, voluntarily dismiss- der of Nolle § on 1983 to the defendants Brooks’s charges against Brooks. ing the that the claims because it found circumstances, justified by mean- history B. Procedural had oc- ing that no constitutional violation in the filed the instant action to exer- curred. The court then declined for the East- Court United States District supplemental jurisdiction over cise Michigan ern District of November claims Brooks’s state-law and dismissed complaint part was based in on 2006. Her timely ap- prejudice. without This them 1983, allegations § included 42 U.S.C. peal followed. Rothe, Bodis, Weis- defendants — (the enbach, individual de- and Gaertner II. ANALYSIS fendants), along with Summary judgment standard A. (the defen- City municipal of Bad Axe novo dants) de a district rights We review violated her —had Int’l Fourth, Fifth, summary judgment. of First, grant and Fourteenth court’s 706 Cummins, Inc., 478, proceed analyze legality 483 therefore

Union v. Cir.2006). judgment Summary is Brooks’s arrest. of material genuine no issue proper where Wrongful arrest is moving party fact entitled exists and as a matter law. Fed. judgment claim hinges 56(c). a considering In motion R.Civ.P. legality for resisting of her arrest or summary judgment, the district court obstructing Lieutenant Rothe. A reasonable inferences fa must draw all who has been the of an victim unlawful nonmoving party. Matsushita vor of the or wrongful arrest seizure under the color Corp., v. Zenith Elec. Indus. Co. Radio has a claim law based the Fourth 587, 106 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. guarantee government Amendment (1986). central “whether The issue is may subject officials citizens disagree sufficient presents evidence proper searches seizures without au require jury ment to submission to IV; thorization. U.S. Const. amend. party whether it so one-sided that one is Schubert, Gardenhire 312- prevail must matter law.” (6th Cir.2000). warrantless arrest “[A] Inc., Liberty Lobby, Anderson v. 477 U.S. lawa officer is reasonable under the 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed.2d 202 Fourth Amendment proba where there is (1986). ble cause believe that criminal offense being has been or is committed.” Deven B. Federal Alford, peck v. 1. Characterization of Brooks’s (2004). 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 “The validity claims depend of the arrest does on whether complaint Brooks’s includes suspect the actually committed a ” all brought against defendants on 42 based Michigan crime.... DeFillippo, v. § provides U.S.C. which a cause of 31, 36, U.S. 99 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 343 a person acting action under where the (1979). Thus, “in for a wrongful order deprived plaintiff color law has a of state claim § arrest succeed a by right a secured the or Constitution plaintiff prove must the police lacked the United Dorsey laws of the States. v. probable Fridley cause.” v. Horrighs, 291 (6th Barber, Cir.2008). 517 F.3d Cir.2002). “Probable The district court construed Brooks’s claim exists if the and cause facts circumstances challenge constitutionality as a to the of known to the prudent officer warrant a and Weisenbach’s warrantless man in believing that the offense has been Although agree search of we SafePlace. Hains, Logsdon committed.” v. with the district court’s conclusion ultimate (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Henry that the defendants’ into shelter States, 98, 102, justified based on circum- (1959)). 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 stances, § we believe Brooks for violating was arrested claim argument is best characterized as an following Michigan statute: the defendants violated her Fourth Except (2), as provided in subsections rights by Amendment her with- arresting (4) (3), provide Indeed, [which enhanced probable out cause. offenses], penalties for certain agreed indi- with this characterization of her assaults, batters, wounds, supplemental claims both in her vidual re- briefing sists, obstructs, during opposes, endangers before the or district oral arguments before this court. We will who the knows or individual has or Q. Weisenbach] his Did either [Rothe know or her performing is reason open gain the door and felony punishable by try physically guilty of a duties is 2 years more than access? for not imprisonment $2,000.00, or of not more than a fíne

or A. Yes. both. your Q. by doing And so—what was 750.81d(l). The § Laws stat Comp. Mich. they tried. response when including “the “obstruct” ute defines on pushed A. Elizabeth Weisenbach threatened use of interfer use or door, my I had hand on left failure to knowing force or com ence by the my door and door. leftfoot lawful command.” ply Q. happened And what then? 750.81d(7)(a). is defined to in § “Person” A. pushed Elizabeth Weisenbach of this state.” “police clude open, stepped door she inside the build- 750.81d(7)(b). task is therefore to § Our ing. up her hands and her put She had whether Rothe determine my fingertips pushed shoulder and had that Brooks violated cause to believe me back. 750.81d(1). § Q. Okay. When Elizabeth Weisenbach matter, argues, as a threshold door, you I pushed responded take could not violated being step either forced back or 750.81d(1) the command she § stepping voluntarily? back This resisting argu not “lawful.” A. Yes. First, a fails for two reasons. ment Q. Which is it? reading language of the straightforward step A. I was back. 750.81d(7)(a) forced provides that the law can Q. your Okay, you so had left foot ways: by physically be violated two your the door left hand on the door? command, resisting a lawful or unlawful, by refusing comply with a A. I my left hand the door and force. using door, lawful command without This my edge left foot reading supported by Michigan is edge bottom of the door. v. Appeals’ People Ven opinion

Court Q. And then Elizabeth Weisenbach tura, Mich.App. 262 686 N.W.2d 748 pushed the door from outside into (2004), where that court held that “[a] facility, the interior of the correct? may not use force resist an A. Yes. made he knows or rea arrest one has Q. Are it that you sure was her is performing to know his duties re son words, pushed, you in other did see her arrest is gardless illegal of whether the pushing? charged pursuant when MCL A. No. 750.81d does not re [Section] 750.81d.... Q. why you do it was Okay. So think showing defendant’s arrest quire that her? Id at Brooks’s argu lawful[.]” A. she was the first one to Because Rothe’s ment that command unlawful step the door and fast. into was so only if her can therefore succeed actions Q. just Okay. you’re following logic? So no interference. involved A. Yes. deposition testimony But Brooks’s own that, Q. you a result Okay. And as passive- than

establishes she did more step were forced to back? ly comply refuse to with Rothe’s order to A. him and Weisenbach to SafePlace: Yes. admit (6th Cir.2008) back, Purcell, you

Q. stepped when how And Arizona, far, (citing Mincey two? v. a foot or 437 U.S. 392-93, L.Ed.2d 290 A. A step. (1978)). types Among the of circum Q. step? Elizabeth One stances this court has held qualify your both of her placed then hands “exigent” as are the imminent destruction shoulders? and a of danger evidence risk to the A. Yes. others. Id. A court must review Q. your telling And me “totality of the circumstances and the back? pushed you further inherent necessities of situation” itas A. Yes. then existed to determine whether exigent Q. you response? Okay. do in What present. circumstances were United States back. Stepped A. Rohrig, Cir. added.) (Emphasis (citations 1996) quotation and internal illustrates, testimony As the above omitted). marks inquiry The focuses actively blocked the door her subjective intentions, on an officer’s but hand and foot so Rothe and Weisen- an objectively whether reasonable officer building bach could not enter the without could believed that circum forcing open. the door Even when Weis- stances existed. v. City O’Brien Grand (Brooks enbach was not sure and/or (6th Cir.1994). Rapids, 23 F.3d door) who pushed physically pushed on the The district court persuasively explained it open, only yield step Brooks-would reasoning concluding its that Rothe two at a time. This makes clear reasonably believed there was an im- physically obstructed Rothe and minent threat of destruction of evidence: SafePlace, into Weisenbach’s mean- Here, placed Plaintiff a call to 911 re- 750.81d(7)(a) ing that under the text of garding pain. resident with back Sub- Michigan and the Court of lan- Appeals’ sequently, paramedics identified the Ventura, guage in com- Rothe’s involving medical need a drug as over- mand was lawful or unlawful is irrelevant. dose, pain. rather than back This new Second, if we accept even were to information, as well the existence of argument Brooks’s behavior discrepancy, communicated simple comply amounted to a refusal to dispatch supervisor, who con- command, with Rothe’s and that the law- veyed that information to Bo- Defendant fulness of the command is therefore rele- dis. This information was also related vant analysis, to the argument Thus, to Defendant Rothe. the informa- falls short. That is because Rothe’s de- objectively tion available to an officer at mand to be admitted to was SafePlace scene, regardless of Defendants’ justified by exigent circumstances —the subjective intentions, was that a possibility of destruction of evidence and drugs had overdosed on and that an injury the risk of serious to other shelter attempt was made to conceal that fact residents, including children—and was Further, police. from Plaintiff had therefore lawful. Rothe, entry twice barred to Defendant requirement The that officers though first even he arrived on the must a possess warrant a premises directly to conduct after Plaintiff had subject exceptions. is to placed several a call requesting to 911 assis- exceptions One of those presence facts, is the of undisputed tance. On these exigent objectively circumstances. States v. police reasonable had know she either knew or reason to have concluded that evidence could imminently destroyed. Ac- police be that Rothe was a officer and was would existed, circumstances cordingly, exigent his Rothe performing duty. to stated spent getting time where additional that he to Brooks several times needed jeopardized would have a warrant investigate crime enter shelter to pos- of the evidence of finding likelihood scene, that if Brooks did not admit drugs or use still on the scene. of session him, he would arrest her. Yet Brooks 06-14939-BC, Rothe, No. Brooks v. repeatedly obey that she refused to admits 114811, *6, LEXIS 2008.U.S. Dist. WL placed and even herself Rothe’s commands 2008). (E.D.Mich. 1422, at *17-18 Jan. way prevent the door in a him behind entering. light In of circum- exigent was the from these Another circumstance stances, posed clearly probable harm other shel- Rothe had cause threat of serious Rothe could not be sure ter residents. that had him to believe obstructed sought time that he to SafePlace job. performing his had on. type of MR overdosed what Because we conclude that Rothe’s de due to good suspect, had reason Rothe mand to enter lawful keep him of the efforts to out Brooks’s probable cause to that that he believe apparent and her concealment shelter 750.81d(1), § action violated Brooks’s overdose, regarding information wrongful Brooks’s claim of a arrest under been ille- may using residents have other Fridley § fails. v. Horrighs, See least, he drugs very At the gal well. (6th Cir.2002) (“In 867, 872 F.3d order were that other women children knew wrongful claim to arrest succeed shelter, in the and could thus staying plaintiff § must prove justifiably those residents believed cause.”). lacked Brooks’s high drug-relat- at a for further were risk § all of against the other de injuries. Considering this factor ed are claim fendants derivative de- conjunction with the imminent risk of Rothe, evidence, against proper and were therefore safely can con- we struction justified ly rejected the district court as well. circumstances clude demand to enter shelter with- Rothe’s argument Brooks’s out a warrant. Brooks’s C. state-law claims simply resisting an unlawful com- Upon dismissing Brooks’s federal accordingly

mand fails. claims, properly the district court declined Having established Rothe’s demand jurisdiction supplemental over to exercise premises be admitted to the SafePlace remaining state-law claims. “Un lawful, we are left determine 1367(c)(3), § 28 U.S.C. the district der would the facts known may supplemental- decline to exercise prudent believing man “warrant if it jurisdiction over a claim has dismissed 750.81d(1) ] [a the offense violation juris original all claims over which it has Logsdon v. been committed.” ha[d] If dis diction. the federal claims are Cir.2007) Hains, trial, gener missed before the state claims States, Henry (quoting v. United 361 Wojnicz as ally should be dismissed well.” 168, 4 134 L.Ed.2d (6th Davis, Fed.Appx. 384-85 (1959)). that identi Brooks admits n Cir.2003) Taylor v. Am. officer, (citing First the police himself as a fied of (6th arrival, Bank-Wayne, i.e., his in direct circumstances of Cir.1992)). call, that to her established response

III. CONCLUSION and Weisenbach did not have a warrant to majority search SafePlace. The concludes above, reasons forth For all of the set justified by exigent the was judgment the district we AFFIRM the circumstances, specifically possibility the court. destroyed that evidence would be and the injury DISSENT risk of to other SafePlace residents. “ ‘[wjhen explained We have there is MOORE, KAREN NELSON Circuit consent, a warrant neither nor courts will dissenting. Judge, only a search permit or seizure to stand Arrest Wrongful ” extraordinary circumstances.’ agree majority I with that Brooks’s Purcell, United States v. 526 F.3d claim a Fourth should be characterized as (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. challenge Amendment to her arrest rather Chambers, Cir. than to the search of SafePlace. I also 2005)). Taking light the facts most agree majority’s with the determination Brooks, to favorable I would hold that the can Comp. that an individual violate Mich. government has not met its burden of 750.81d(1) by physically resisting Laws establishing exigent circumstances. See any or refusing comply command to id. However, with a I lawful command. re Significantly, the timeline belies the exi- spectfully from majority’s dissent con gency; the initial 911 was call made at clusion that Brooks did passive more than a.m., 7:10 ailing about partici- service ly comply refuse to with Rothe’s order. pant had been removed from Taking light the facts most favor a.m., 8:00 and Rothe and Weisenbach did Brooks, able summary to we must on police not leave the to station search Safe- judgment, I would conclude that Brooks until fact Place 8:30 a.m. The that at least did not use force resist order. Rothe’s passed half an hour between the end of the door, Although open Brooks did not police incident and the arrival makes keeping a closed way door is a non-violent unlikely any urgency there was search; resist she did not slam the evidence; related destruction if police door body on the or her force planned destroy someone anything, against this they it when tried to enter. The provided window time fact would have him opened that Brooks only the door bit, or with enough more than little that she used time to do her hand and foot prevent Additionally, so. opening entirely, only it from information quickly away police possessed juncture she did not back at this the door as soon as the Rothe ordered her that a may overdose have occurred at to let them enter and search SafePlace may SafePlace and that Brooks have tried does not using indicate that she to conceal the fact that overdose oc- threatening force to resist Rothe’s order. They curred. did not know what kind of The majority’s holding would leave individ taken, drugs might have been how much uals with little room passively resist taken, might have been whether the indi- orders, unlawful keeping as even SafePlace, vidual had taken the drugs open door crack speaking while there drugs present were more officers is deemed obstruction un paramedics SafePlace. The report majority’s misguided der the view. dangerous any existing conditions at Safe- Place, I Additionally, Brooks does not have would hold that Brooks medical has showing training permit made a sufficient would her to diagnose resisting accurately an unlawful complaints command. Rothe the medical of a Purcell, 960; exigent-circum- See 526 F.3d at If the stances. SafePlace resident. Davis, justifies a search stances doctrine States v. facts, any that Cir.2008). then almost indication

these Additionally, into delving in a struc- has occurred overdose case, I specific facts of this that believe present are will people ture which other a reasonable would have known of that struc- permit a warrantless search violating that he or she was Brooks’s clear- an of warrantless ture. Such extension ly rights. established constitutional See violates our searches Constitution. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815. light the facts in the most favor- Taking Bodis, deposition, At his John chief Brooks, I able to would conclude Axe, following Bad made the permit Rothe to Rothe’s order regarding statements Brooks’s arrest: an order search SafeHouse was unlawful by supported it not a warrant because was Q: your department Does an officer in Additionally, circumstances. exigent your policies based I would that Brooks has made conclude right to arrest a citizen who has not showing that her arrest was sufficient peacefully disobeyed unlawful cause supported by probable by that command issued officer? 750.81d(l) pas- not criminalize the does sive, you’re saying of such an un- A: So there’s no nonphysical opposition law support lawful order. what his is? command Q: saying I’m it’s an unlawful com- Qualified Immunity1 2. mand. I defen- Because would hold Fourth dants-appellees violated Brooks’s unlawful, they A: it’s then should If rights by arresting her with- Amendment not arrest. cause, I must out address (Bodis Appeal Dep. Record analy- aspect qualified-immunity second added). 39) (emphasis This statement sis; defendants-appellees vio- running man responsible the Bad rights. clearly lated Brooks’s established police department Axe that a rea- indicates — Callahan, -, Pearson v. U.S. known sonable officer should have (2009). I L.Ed.2d 565 S.Ct. proper not to arrest someone non- sufficiently alleged Brooks has believe that violently refusing an unlaw- comply with clearly that her established were rights exactly ful order. That is what Brooks First, abundantly it is violated. clear alleges at SafePlace. Accord- happened proba- place no arrest should take without ingly, I that none would conclude ble cause and a warrantless search defendants-appellees quali- are entitled in the of a cannot be conducted absence immunity.2 fied exception such as circum- warrant are munici- to cause the violations of her constitutional 1. As Bad Axe Indeed, rights. palities, they qualified are entitled to im- indicate each not facts - Callahan, munity. defendant-appellee participated See Pearson v. either in or -, L.Ed.2d 565 proper it was determined that order the (2009). and the arrest. was the officer search ultimately responsible on the scene for con- Brooks, ducting arresting but Although each of the individual defendants- consulting he did act without appellees played slightly different role in the Bodis, incident, Bodis not act without sufficiently established Brooks has consulting combined Gaertner. that the actions of each individual 712 Immunity provided

3. Gaertner over Absolute Prosecutorial advice the tele- phone. Similarly, Weisenbach’s actions Weisenbach and Gaertner assert in preparing case; were not service of they prosecutorial are entitled absolute instead, she helping police conduct immunity. explained court has This investigation hoping their to use her immunity prosecutorial boundaries of as position as a SafePlace board member to follows: do so. Because Weisenbach neither nor Supreme The Court has endorsed acting Gaertner was the advocacy- within approach determining functional for prosecutorial during based role this inci- whether an official is entitled to absolute dent, I would hold that the district prosecutorial immunity, explaining that correctly look to court should the nature of the concluded that neither is entitled performed, identity function not the immunity. absolute performed the actor it. Municipal Immunity approach

This functional focuses I. prosecutor’s are activities County that, Axe and Bad assert judicial intimately associated with the municipalities, they as are immune from phase process. criminal Those liability. Supreme The Court has ex acts that occur of the course “[ljocal plained that governing bodies ... prosecutor’s role as an for the advocate can sued directly be 1983 for state, e.g., acts taken to for prepare the monetary, injunctive declaratory, or relief judicial initiation of or to proceedings ... alleged where action that is to be trial, prepare protected by are abso- unconstitutional implements executes a By contrast, lute immunity. a prosecu- statement, ordinance, policy regulation, or performs tor who the investigative func- officially adopted decision and promulgat performed tions normally by a detective body’s ed officers.” Monell v. police such searching Soc. Servs., 658, 690, Dep’t U.S. the clues might and corroboration that 2018, (1978). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d The give him probable cause to recommend later holding: Court clarified this “it is that a be suspect arrested is entitled plain liability may that municipal be im only qualified immunity. most to posed single for a by municipal decision Parrish, Cooper 937, 946-47 policymakers under appropriate circum (6th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks City Cincinnati, stances.” Pembaur v. omitted). and citations Weisenbach and 469, 480, 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. Gaertner that' they assert are entitled to (1986). L.Ed.2d 452 municipal Such liabil immunity absolute they act were ity attaches where “the decisionmaker ing their prosecutorial they roles when final possesses authority establish mu consulted with they and because nicipal policy with respect the action or did not arrest Brooks themselves. dered.” Id. at S.Ct. Supreme The Court prose has held that noted, As the district court neither Bad cutors are not entitled to immuni absolute Axe nor Huron addressed pos ty they when performing are “the prosecu sibility that municipal liability can be pred torial giving legal function of advice to the single on a icated action taken Reed, final police.” Burns v. 500 495- Rothe, (1991). decisionmaker. Brooks v. No. 06- 114 L.Ed.2d 547 14939-BC, Much of what Weisenbach and WL *7 Gaertner (E.D.Mich. Oct.31, 2007). did in police; this case was to they advise the Nor do scene, so from the argument confront this on appeal; Bad municipal liability in failed address Axe America, UNITED STATES of brief, County’s appellate

its Plaintiff-Appellee, on the fact that brief focuses appellate poli- a municipal has not identified of behavior that pattern cy or custom ELSON, I alleged injuries. believe to her Defendant- led Martin W. may Appellant. be liable Axe and Huron Bad made injuries she has No. 07-3778. showing that her arrest a sufficient of were result Appeals, United States Court of made the final decisionmaker decisions Sixth Circuit. has alleged municipality. each Argued: June 2009. of SafePlace arrest and the search that her consented were ordered and/or Aug. and Filed: Decided Axe and Huron Coun- chief Bad attorney, of whom both ty’s prosecuting authority matters in their over such I municipalities. Accordingly,

respective inappropriate to that it is

would conclude County immunity Bad Axe or Huron

grant stage litigation. this municipalities at

5. Conclusion I defendants-

Because conclude Fourth Amend- violated Brooks’s

appellees free of arrest without rights

ment be immunity cause does lia- defendants-appellees

protect I the district court’s

bility, would reverse on Brooks’s summary judgment

grant pro- remand for further

federal

ceedings. I also reverse district would Brooks’s state-law

court’s dismissal of claims so that the

claims and remand those its court can reevaluate decision

district jurisdic- supplemental to exercise

decline proceed on given that it should

tion

Brooks’s federal claims.

Case Details

Case Name: Brooks v. Rothe

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 21, 2009

Citation: 577 F.3d 701

Docket Number: 08-1099, 08-1195

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.