McDonel v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-11508 |
| Parties | MICHAEL MCDONEL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff, Michael McDonel, accuses the City of Detroit and two of its police officers of violating his constitutional rights under the Fourth, First, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In particular, McDonel alleges that Officers Ryan Klein and Nicholas Urista illegally stopped him and investigated him for merely speaking to them in a manner they did not like and asking them their names on the evening of March 22, 2018. While McDonel's complaint alleges several other constitutional and state law violations, in his response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, he abandons his federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for conspiracy, excessive force, and malicious prosecution, as well as his state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and gross negligence.[1] Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all of McDonel's claims. But Plaintiff defends against summary judgment only as to his claims for “wrongful seizure/search” under the Fourth Amendment, retaliation under the First Amendment, and municipal liability against the City. (ECF No. 27, PageID.503). Thus, the court's analysis centers on these claims. Having taken the matter under advisement following a hearing on the motion, Plaintiffs' wrongful seizure and retaliation claims survive, but his municipal liability claim fails.
Therefore, for the reasons that follow, summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
On March 22, 2018, at around 9:20 p.m., two Detroit Police Department (“DPD”) officers, Defendants Klein and Urista, initiated a traffic stop of a white Nissan near the new Providence Baptist church in the city of Detroit. (ECF No. 23-2, PageID.171; ECF No. 27, PageID.513). The lot has two side-by-side gates, an east-side gate for exiting the parking lot and a west-side gate for entering it. Both the east and west gates were still open. (ECF No. 27, PageID.513). The police car and the Nissan pulled into the driveway of the New Providence Baptist Church and stopped by the east-side gates. (Id.) Plaintiff, Michael McDonel, was working as a maintenance supervisor at the church and one of his responsibilities was to close and chain the gates to the church's parking lot. (Id. at PageID.511.)
The officers parked their car behind the Nissan and got out; Urista went to the driver's side of the Nissan to talk to the driver while Klein first looked through the passenger side front and back seats with his flashlight and then moved to the back of the vehicle to read the Nissan's license plate number to dispatch. (Exhibit A, Klein Body Cam, 00:45-02:05). A hanging shirt partially obstructed Klein's view through the passenger window. (Id. at 01:02).
While Klein was at the back of the Nissan, McDonel drove from the church and through the west-side gates to close the gates for the night. (ECF No. 27, PageID.514). He got out of his vehicle and first closed and locked the west-side gates. (Id.) As officer Klein flashed his light through the passenger side of the Nissan, he initiated the following exchange with McDonel:
(Exhibit A, Klein Body Cam, 02:10-02:52). During the conversation, Klein turned off his flashlight and appeared to continue facing the Nissan. (Id.) After telling McDonel to calm down, Klein then walked back to the patrol car. At the same time, Urista walked over to McDonel and began talking to him:
(Id. at 02:51-02:59).
Urista then walked away, but McDonel, believing the officers were being rude (ECF No. 27, PageID.516), asked for Urista's name. (Exhibit A, Klein Body Cam, 03:00). He asked him to repeat it twice and then asked Klein for his name. (Id. at 3:05). Immediately after McDonel asked for their names and as he walked back towards his vehicle, Urista asked McDonel to produce his identification, which he immediately did. (Id. at 03:11-03:25). Urista told him, “One sec, ” and Klein told him, “Just go ahead and stay right there.” (Id. at 3:29).
The officers returned to their patrol car where Klein remarked, “Let me see that fuckers' ID, ” referring to McDonel. (Id. at 03:40). Urista then replied, “I think that's a warrant . . . interfering.” (Id. at 03:49). He also indicated that the driver they had initially stopped in the white Nissan was “good to go, ” while Klein ran McDonel's information through the in-car computer. (Id. at 03:55). Chuckling, Klein noted, albeit mistakenly, that McDonel's driver's license was suspended. (Id. at 03:58). Urista responded that they could take his “whip, ” and Klein said that “he's not supposed to be driving.” (Id. at 04:34-04:39). In the meantime, McDonel was explaining to someone on the phone that he had just told the officers that he had to lock the gates. Overhearing him, Klein remarked, “Yeah, with an attitude.” (Id. at 05:20-05:24).
Klein asked Urista how they wanted to handle McDonel. (Id. at 05:56). Urista responded, (Id. at 05:58-06:01). They also agreed to tow his vehicle because he was operating it with a suspended license. (Id. at 06:01-06:06).
The officers then got out of the patrol car. Urista approached the Nissan and let the owner know he was good to go. (Id. at 06:15). They then approached McDonel, who had remained standing where the officers had left him in the lot. Klein explained to McDonel that he was operating a motor vehicle on a suspended driver's license. (Id. at 07:23). McDonel responded that his license was expired, not suspended, so the officers returned to the patrol car to check. (Id. at 07:44). McDonel was correct; his license had expired a few weeks earlier on his birthday.
The officers were uncertain if McDonel could operate his vehicle on an expired licensed, so they called another officer, “Garrison.” (Id. at 11:35). In explaining the situation to Garrison, Klein noted that McDonel was interfering. (Id. at 12:05). Klein asked if having an expired license was just a ticketable offense and whether McDonel could drive his vehicle. (Id. at 12:12-12:17). He also asked if they could tow his vehicle, wanting to make sure because he “didn't want to do something he wasn't supposed to do.” (Id. at 13:05-13:13). After he got off the phone, Klein explained to Urista that “you can tow his shit if you want to.” (Id. at 13:34). Klein then noticed that McDonel's license had only recently expired, so he called Garrison again to see if that changed anything, and was assured that it did not. (Id. at 14:24-15:32). Klein then requested a tow. (Id. at 17:17). While still in the car, the officers had the following conversation:
The officers then left their vehicle again and informed McDonel that they were citing him for interference and obstruction under Detroit City Code § 31-2-2 and for driving with an expired license. (Id. at 24:22-25:40). Urista explained, (Id. at 24:45-24:59). Urista said he also had to disengage his contact with the citizen he was investigating in order to focus on McDonel. (Id. at 24:59- 25:09). As a result, McDonel was “open for investigation for interfering with a city employee with the performance of their duty.” (Id. at 25:10-25:15). He also explained that his expired license was a civil infraction and that they were towing his car. (Id. at 25:18-25:26).
McDonel then asked to get his things out of the car, which they allowed (Id. at 25:44). But he also advised officers, for the first time, that he had a concealed permit license (“CPL”) and a loaded weapon in his vehicle. (Id. at 26:08). Klein told him that he was supposed to disclose that as soon as McDonel started talking to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial