Payton v. City of Detroit

• Citation: 211 Mich.App. 375,536 N.W.2d 233
• Decision Date: 06 June 1995
• Docket Number: 148435,Docket Nos. 148260
• Parties: David Jonathon PAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, William L. Hart, Gerald Hale, and Richard Ridling, Defendants-Appellants. (Two Cases)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 233

536 N.W.2d 233

211 Mich.App. 375

David Jonathon PAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, William L. Hart, Gerald Hale, and Richard Ridling, Defendants-Appellants. (Two Cases)

Docket Nos. 148260, 148435.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 4, 1994, at Detroit.

Decided June 6, 1995, at 9:10 a.m.

Released For Publication Aug. 30, 1995.

Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C. by Barry P. Waldman, Denise L. Mitcham, and Barbara M. Robinson, (Bendure & Thomas by Mark R. Bendure and Sidney A. Klingler, of counsel), Detroit, for plaintiff.

Phyllis James, Corp. Counsel, and Joanne D. Stafford, Supervising Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for defendants.

Before HOOD, P.J., and TAYLOR and SERVITTO, ^* JJ.

TAYLOR, Judge.

In Docket No. 148260, defendants appeal as of right the trial court's judgment. Plaintiff cross appeals as of right, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial if this Court finds any of defendants' arguments meritorious. In Docket No. 148435, defendants appeal the trial court's order awarding plaintiff attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

DOCKET NO. 148260

On February 9, 1992, plaintiff filed suit against the City of Detroit and several of its employees, including Police Chief William Hart, Executive Deputy Police Chief James Bannon, Deputy Police Chief Gerald Hale, and Lieutenant Richard Ridling. Plaintiff's complaint also named Wayne County Prosecutor William Cahalan and various other prosecutors, the City of Highland Park, and several Highland Park employees but, for various reasons, they are no longer involved in the case. ¹

The complaint alleged tort claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for an alleged conspiracy to interfere with plaintiff's civil rights. A thorough discussion of the

underlying facts of this case will assist in resolving the issues raised on appeal.

FACTS

In Detroit in the late 1970s through 1980, there were approximately thirty-four murders of women who were believed to be prostitutes. These murders were investigated by Squad 7, a Detroit police unit formed in 1974 responsible for investigating major felony-murder cases. Squad 7 consisted of ten to twelve experienced police detectives and a prosecutor from Wayne County who was available at all times. Richard Ridling was the head of Squad 7, and Deputy Chief Hale of the Criminal Investigation Bureau was the individual to whom the squad reported. Hale, in turn, reported directly to Chief Hart. Hart met with Hale almost daily, but delegated job authority to Hale, although he could intervene if needed. A five-member civilian Board of Police Commissioners formulated and made the policies of the Detroit Police Department. By late 1980, nineteen of the thirty-four murder cases remained open and the members of Squad 7 believed that these remaining murders were most likely perpetrated by one individual.

On November 5, 1980, while conducting surveillance in Highland Park, Detroit police officers encountered Anita Staples, a prostitute who indicated that she had been forced to perform oral sex on a man who had threatened to beat her with a tire iron. On the basis of Staples' physical description of the man and the car he was driving, Highland Park and Detroit police officers arrested plaintiff at his mother's home and brought him to the Highland Park Police Department. No warrant had been issued for his arrest.

Plaintiff was held by the Highland Park police for more than thirty hours. Payton v. Wayne Co., 137 Mich.App. 361, 364, 357 N.W.2d 700 (1984). After being taken into custody at about 2:15 a.m., plaintiff was placed in the lockup cell. Plaintiff signed a constitutional right certificate of notification on November 5, 1980, at 10:27 a.m., acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights, and indicated he did not want an attorney. Later that day, he was questioned by both the Highland Park police and the Detroit police with regard to whether he had raped Staples and committed a number of homicides. Plaintiff denied committing any of the crimes. Plaintiff claims that, during this time, the officers deprived him of his contact lenses and glasses, causing him to suffer severe headaches and sleeplessness. He also asserts that the interrogating officers told him he could not have an attorney until they charged him with a crime.

Because the Highland Park police were unsuccessful in their efforts to contact Ms. Staples, they ended their investigation of plaintiff. On November 6th, Highland Park police turned plaintiff over to the Detroit Police Department for an investigation into the prostitute murders. Without first obtaining an arrest warrant, Detroit police officers transported plaintiff to the Detroit Police Department, where he was questioned again for more than fifty-six hours. Id. The decision to arrest and transfer plaintiff to Detroit was made by Ridling on the basis of surveillance notes and a complaint against plaintiff alleging felony sex crimes filed by Pamela Favors.

While in custody in Detroit on November 6, 1980, plaintiff initialed another constitutional rights certificate of notification at 11:05 a.m. He was then interrogated by Squad 7 Officers Richard Newcomb, Richard Davies, and Ridling. Plaintiff claims that the officers tried to convince him that if they proved he didn't commit the murders, he wouldn't be prosecuted for rape. At this point, plaintiff had been under arrest for two days and complained of having headaches and vomiting.

The following morning, Friday, November 7, 1980, Favors identified plaintiff in a lineup. She identified plaintiff as the person who had assaulted her with a knife and threatened to kill her after she had performed oral sex on him on October 28, 1980. Her complaint was joined with that of another prostitute, Renee Cobb, who alleged plaintiff committed a similar assault in July, 1980. Around 3:30 p.m., after the lineup, plaintiff was taken before Judge Michael Talbot to obtain a reverse My advice to you is, make no statement until you talk to a lawyer and if you wish to make a statement you know you have the right to a lawyer. If you start taking and decide to stop you have the right to stop. You may stop speaking at any time.

                writ. 2  Plaintiff was represented by an attorney.  The court was informed by the officer accompanying plaintiff that plaintiff had been arrested the previous day on a murder charge and that there were more complaints involving charges of sex crimes.  Judge Talbot informed plaintiff that he had the right to an attorney, and further instructed
                

Counsel for plaintiff made no objection to the grant of the reverse writ.

As a result of the reverse writ, the police continued to detain plaintiff in order to obtain additional evidence. Plaintiff claims that, during this time, he was harassed by the officers and told that he could not have an attorney. Plaintiff asserts that Ridling instructed him not to seek assistance from an attorney and that he failed to ask for a lawyer when speaking to a friend on the phone because the officers would have discontinued plaintiff's conversation if he had not given the officers' desired responses. Plaintiff asserts that he continued to suffer severe headaches and sleeplessness due to the deprivation of his glasses. He also claims that he was not allowed to wash and that he was scared and crying.

Plaintiff claims that when he refused to give the officers a statement after being pushed by them to do so, Ridling told plaintiff that if he did not confess to the murders, he would be charged with rape. According to plaintiff, Ridling threatened to frame him for alleged sex crimes if he did not confess to the murders. Ridling further told plaintiff that if he would talk about the murders, Ridling would work out a deal with the officers in the sex crime unit so that he wouldn't be prosecuted for the sex crimes. Throughout this interrogation, Ridling provided plaintiff information about the homicides and suggested that plaintiff was mentally unstable. Newcomb and Davies suggested that plaintiff confess to a number of murders to increase his chances of a successful insanity defense.

At approximately 6:00 p.m., on November 7, 1980, Ridling instructed Officer James Harris to conduct another interrogation of plaintiff with Ridling present. Harris read plaintiff the constitutional rights advisement and proceeded to record plaintiff's statement in writing. Harris then asked plaintiff to read the written statement. Plaintiff looked at the statement and signed it. In that statement, plaintiff confessed to the murder of one of the prostitutes, Betty Rembert, stating that he choked and killed her after picking her up on Woodward near Boston and struggling with her over money after she had performed a sexual act. Plaintiff claims that this statement was not based on his personal knowledge, but, rather, that he merely was providing details about the murder that were given to him by Ridling and others.

Although Ridling seemed satisfied with plaintiff's confession to the Rembert murder, Officer Harris testified that he was concerned about the confession. Harris stated that Ridling had told plaintiff about an article of clothing left on the victim's body and that plaintiff seemed to have been told the information before. Further, Harris believed that plaintiff's version of where the body was found would have increased the possibility of him being seen. Finally, Harris was unsure whether plaintiff even read the confession because he signed it fairly quickly.

After plaintiff's statement, a Squad 7 officer called Richard Krisciunas, the prosecutor assigned to Squad 7, in order to obtain an arrest warrant. Krisciunas reviewed the confession and, after Harris...