Hart v. Hillsdale Cnty.
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18-1305/18-1307,s. 18-1305/18-1307 |
| Citation | 973 F.3d 627 |
| Parties | Anthony HART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, Kwinn Leva, Timothy Parker, and Christine Wahtola (18-1305); City of Hillsdale, Shelby Rathbun, and Todd Holtz (18-1307), Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
In 2011, Michigan narrowed the crimes covered by the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) making Anthony Hart no longer a "sex offender." Defendants required him to continue registering as one, and he did. In July 2013, he registered an incorrect address and, in January 2014, failed to update his address. Defendants arrested Hart each time, using warrant requests incorrectly representing that he was required to register under SORA. The first time, Hart spent the night in jail; the second time, he served 19 months in prison. When prison officials finally realized the mistake, they released Hart and his convictions were vacated. Hart then sued for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation. Five Defendants, employees of the city police and county sheriff's departments, moved to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and, for the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART .
Michigan's SORA labels as sex offenders certain categories of criminal defendants. That designation is not appealable and sometimes applies "to those whose offenses would not ordinarily be considered sex offenses." Does #1–5 v. Snyder , 834 F.3d 696, 703 (6th Cir. 2016) (). The Act mandates that all sex offenders register with government officials; the length of time depends on the severity of the underlying offense: 15 years for a Tier I offender, 25 years for Tier II, and life for Tier III. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.725(10) – (12).
During that period, registrants are subject to significant conditions, such as a prohibition on living, working, or "loitering" within 1,000 feet of school property. See id. §§ 28.733(f), 28.734(1), 28.735(1). They must report in person to a law enforcement office "whenever they change residences, change employment, enroll (or unenroll) as a student, change their name, register a new email address or other ‘internet identifier,’ wish to travel for more than seven days, or buy or begin to use a vehicle (or cease to own or use a vehicle)." Snyder , 834 F.3d at 698 (citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.722(g), 725(1)).
The information from those periodic reports is compiled into two databases, one freely accessible online. There, any member of the public may view the registrant's photograph, name, birthday, address, employer, school, license plate number, and offense of conviction. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.728(2). The private law enforcement database adds the registrant's social security number, telephone numbers, email addresses, driver's license number, professional licenses, fingerprints, and complete criminal history. See id. § 28.728(1).
SORA distributes responsibilities related to registrations and the databases among different law enforcement agencies. The registrant reports in person to the local "registering authority." See id. § 28.725(1). For a registrant who lives in Michigan, the registering authority is "the local law enforcement agency or sheriff's office having jurisdiction over the individual's residence, place of employment, or institution of higher learning." Id. § 28.722(n). Registering authorities may designate a point person—a "registration official"—to receive and process the in-person reports. The registration official transmits the gathered information to the Michigan State Police (MSP), which maintains both the law enforcement database and the public website. Id. § 28.727(1), 28.728(1) – (2) ; see also id. § 28.722(d). As part of its maintenance responsibility, the MSP removes registrants from both databases if it "determines that an individual has completed his or her registration period, including a registration period reduced by law under [the 2011 SORA amendments], or that he or she otherwise is no longer required to register." Id. § 28.728(9).
If an offender fails to comply with SORA's registration requirements—for example, by missing a periodic check-in or failing to update a changed address—the MSP is required to "notify all registering authorities as provided in [§ 28.728a] and initiate enforcement action as set forth in that section." Id. § 28.725a. The cross-referenced subsection, however, makes clear that the registering authorities need not wait for such notification:
Id. § 28.728a(1) (emphasis added); see also id. § 28.722(g) ().
Willful violation of SORA's registration requirements is a felony. Id. § 28.729(1). A first offense is punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine; by the third offense, potential sanctions increase to ten years and $10,000. Id .
In 2011, the Michigan legislature amended SORA, changing the definition of "convicted." See 2011 Mich. Pub. Acts 17. Under the new definition, an individual who was tried as a juvenile was "convicted" only if "[t]he individual was 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense" and was classified as a "tier III offender." Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.722(b)(iii). Because individuals are only "offenders" under the Act if they have been "convicted" of violating certain statutes, see id. § 28.722(r) – (w), this new definition removed the sex offender mantle from juvenile offenders convicted of tier I or tier II offenses.
Hart, a registered sex offender for many years, was one such former juvenile offender.1 Because he had been designated a tier II offender after his juvenile court hearing, he should have been removed from the databases following the 2011 amendments. Hart was never notified that he was no longer required to register and should have been removed from the registry, so he continued to report to his local registering authority.
Hart alleges that in March 2012 Defendant Christine Wahtola (a registration official at the county sheriff's department) told him that he was required to register. He did so and, because he was homeless, reported a series of temporary addresses over the next year. In July 2013, he changed his address again, reporting that he was living in a treehouse in the backyard of 79 Budlong Street. Defendant Kwinn Leva (another county registration official) told Defendant Lieutenant Timothy Parker about the change. Parker went to the address; Hart was not there. When Parker located Hart, Hart explained that he was living behind the house across the street, number 76. Parker arrested Hart for violating SORA, took him to the county jail, and then applied for and received an arrest warrant. Hart spent the night in jail. A month later, on the advice of his attorney, Hart pleaded no contest to the SORA violation, was found guilty, and was assessed a $325 fine.
In December 2013, Leva registered Hart again. The next month, Parker told Defendants Shelby Rathbun and Todd Holtz that Hart had failed to verify his address; they then tried to locate Hart. Hart, upon learning about their attempts, voluntarily appeared at the sheriff's office and was arrested. On January 24, 2014, after Hart was in jail, Rathbun requested an arrest warrant. On February 10, Defendant Marci Kelley sent Rathbun a copy of Hart's certified sex offender registration record. A few weeks later, again on the advice of counsel, Hart pleaded guilty to the charged SORA violation. He was sentenced to 16 to 24 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $1,027.
After Hart had served 19 months of that sentence, an official at the Michigan Department of Corrections realized the error and notified the MSP. Kelley confirmed that, in light of the 2011 amendments, Hart had not been required to register at the time of either conviction. Hart was released from prison in August 2015, and both of his convictions were vacated.
Hart filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Four groups of defendants are relevant to the present appeal: (1) Wahtola, Leva, and Parker, who work for the county sheriff's department (the County Defendants); (2) Rathbun and Holtz, who work for the city police department (the City Defendants); (3) Kelley and Melissa Marinoff, who work for the MSP (the State Defendants); and (4) Hillsdale County and the City of Hillsdale (the Municipal Defendants).2
Early in the proceedings, the district court granted the State De...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahoo v. Fast Enters. LLC
...section 1983, " ‘[e]ach defendant's liability must be assessed individually based on his own actions.’ " Hart v. Hillsdale Cnty., Michigan , 973 F.3d 627, 639 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Binay v. Bettendorf , 601 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir. 2010) ).1. Sharon Moffet-MasseySharon Moffet-Massey was n......
-
Miller v. Gettel
...generally inappropriate for a district court to grant a 12(b)(6) motion on the basis of qualified immunity." Hart v. Hillsdale Cty., Michigan , 973 F.3d 627, 635 (6th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Although an officer's entitlement to qualified immunity is a threshold quest......
-
Zakora v. Chrisman
...court nor adequately briefed on appeal, so consideration by us in the first instance would be inappropriate. See Hart v. Hillsdale County , 973 F.3d 627, 645 (6th Cir. 2020) ("Without the benefit of an initial determination by the district court or any developed argument on appeal, we are u......
-
Watkins v. Healy
...denying a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is usually not a final decision that we may review under § 1291, see Hart v. Hillsdale County , 973 F.3d 627, 634–35 (6th Cir. 2020). A judicially created exception to this rule is the collateral-order doctrine, which originated in Cohen v. Benefici......
-
Reforming Qualified-Immunity Appeals.
...general rule. Crowson v. Wash. Cnty., 983 F.3d 1166, 1192 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 224 (2021); Hart v. Hillsdale Cty., 973 F.3d 627, 645-46 (6th Cir. 2020). (287) Lammon, Municipal Piggybacking, supra note 19, at 136. (288) For an in-depth discussion of the practice in the......