TY Putrich v. Peterson
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-957 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 2023 |
| Parties | TY PUTRICH, Plaintiff, v. MARK PETERSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Ty Putrich brings this civil rights action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Officer Mark Petersen[1] violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from arrest without probable cause, unreasonable search and seizure, and excessive force.[2]Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) as well as Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No 39). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part both of the parties' respective motions.
Plaintiff works in the automotive industry as a consultant. (Putrich Dep. 9-11, ECF No. 40-11.)[3] In 2014, Plaintiff moved to Vicksburg Michigan, to live with his girlfriend, Gina Szpak. (Id. at 13.) Szpak worked as a licensed esthetician. (Szpak Dep. 8-9, ECF No. 40-12.)[4]In 2013, Szpak incorporated a skin care business, Armonia Aesthetics, Inc., for which she was the sole shareholder and officer. (Armonia Aesthetics Filing, ECF No. 28-2.) Armonia Aesthetics had 60,000 common shares authorized. (Id., PageID.103.) After moving to Michigan, Plaintiff and Szpak developed a cannabis business through the corporation. (Putrich Dep. 15.) Plaintiff also routed the profits from his automotive consulting business to the corporation. (Id.) In 2016, Szpak sold 50% of Armonia Aesthetics's authorized shares to Plaintiff. (2016 Share Purchase Agreement, ECF No. 28-3.) However, Szpak remained listed as the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of Armonia Aesthetics. (2017 LARA Filings, ECF No. 28-4.)
On December 18, 2018, Szpak purchased a Ford F-150 truck in her name. (Vehicle Title, ECF No. 28-6.) To finance she truck, she used $10,000 from Armonia Aesthetics and took out a $15,000 loan. (Putrich Aff., ECF No. 40-8, PageID.646; Szpak Aff., ECF No. 40-9, PageID.649.)
On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff and Szpak got into an argument over the truck. Plaintiff wanted the truck in Armonia Aesthetics's name for a tax deduction. (Putrich Dep. 27.) Plaintiff asked Szpak to sign the truck over to the corporation and to give him all the money in Armonia Aesthetics's account, which she refused to do. (Szpak Aff., PageID.650.) Plaintiff further asked Szpak for money to pay off the loan, and Szpak gave him a check for $15,000. (Putrich Aff., PageID.647.) After a period of arguing, Heidi Boomsma-Szpak's cousin who was also living at the home-asked Szpak if she should call the police, and Szpak said yes. (Szpak Aff., PageID.650; Szpak Dep. 18, 24.)
Officers Mark Petersen, Derek Guthrie, and Joseph Geiser were dispatched to the home on a “trouble with a subject” complaint. (Police Rep., ECF No. 28-8, PageID.145.) The officers spoke with both Plaintiff and Szpak multiple times. Defendant testified that there were “numerous back-and-forths,” meaning the officers alternated between speaking to Plaintiff, who was outside, and Szpak, who was inside. (Petersen Dep. 39, ECF No. 40-13.)[5] Szpak similarly indicated that the officers “were in and out” so she “do[esn't] remember the time frame on any of that frankly.” (Szpak Dep. 28.) The deposition testimony and video evidence do not provide a clear timeline of what was said when. Accordingly, the Court will describe what Plaintiff and Szpak said to the officers cumulatively.
Szpak indicated that she purchased the truck for Armonia Aesthetics but put it in her name. (Petersen Dep. 33; Szpak Dep. at 27.) She provided documentation demonstrating that she was the sole officer of Armonia Aesthetics and that the truck was registered in her name. (Petersen Dep. 42-44; Police Rep., PageID.145.) She said that Plaintiff accused her of embezzling money from Armonia Aesthetics. (Petersen Dep. 33.)
Plaintiff also told the officers that he believed Szpak had embezzled money to purchase the truck and that he wanted Szpak charged for embezzlement and for filing a false police report. (Id. at 37-38; Petersen Dash Camera 50:50-50:57, ECF No. 44-5.)[6] Plaintiff, who appeared agitated, stated that he “want[ed] the officers to arrest [him]” and to be “charged with a felony” for stealing the vehicle. (Petersen Dash Camera 48:26-50:06.) Plaintiff said he possessed the keys to the truck, had possessions in the truck, and intended to take it to his mother's home in Canton, Illinois. (Id. at 38; Putrich Dep. 31.) Defendant told Plaintiff that this was a civil matter between himself and Szpak. (Petersen Dep. 46.)
The officers told Plaintiff that he could not take the truck because it was Szpak's vehicle “and she wanted it back.” (Petersen Dep. 46.) Plaintiff testified that he was “forcibly removed from the truck.” (Putrich Dep. 32.)[7] Defendant testified that Plaintiff walked towards the driver's side door and he, along with Officer Guthrie, grabbed Plaintiff's elbows to prevent his entry into the truck. (Petersen Dep. 47-48.)
The officers then informed Plaintiff that they were going to detain him for safety reasons. (Id. at 48.) Defendant proceeded to handcuff Plaintiff, who did not resist. (Id. at 49.) Defendant then patted Plaintiff down, searched his pockets, and removed Plaintiff's cell phone, some cash, and his wallet. (Id. at 51.) Defendant could not recall whether Plaintiff had a pocket knife; however, Plaintiff testified that he did not have a pocket knife at the time. (Id. at 50; Putrich Aff., PageID.648.) Defendant then placed Plaintiff in the backseat of his patrol car. (Petersen Dep. 53.)
Defendant stood near the patrol car while Officers Guthrie and Geiser provided Szpak with the keys to the truck[8] and instructed her to remove Plaintiff's belongings from the truck and place them on the hood or trunk of Plaintiff's car, a Toyota Avalon that was also parked at the residence. (Guthrie Dash Camera 3:25-3:35.)
Plaintiff, who was still detained, then stood up outside of the patrol car. (Id. at 4:28-4:31.) Defendant instructed Officer Guthrie to go to the driver's side passenger door, reach inside, grab ahold of Plaintiff's handcuffs, and assist him in pulling Plaintiff into the patrol car. (Petersen Dep. 63.) Accordingly, Officer Guthrie jogged to the left-side of the car, opened the passenger door, and got inside. (Id. at 4:32-4:35.) Defendant first placed one hand on top of Plaintiff's head to push him down into the patrol car. (Id. at 4:37-4:39.) Defendant then placed both hands around Plaintiff's head and first pulled Plaintiff towards him and then pushed him down into the patrol car. (Id. at 4:40-4:43.) Whether Plaintiff did a summersault in the car is disputed, and the rear camera in the patrol car was malfunctioning at the time. (Petersen Dep. 67.)
From inside the car Plaintiff exclaimed: “Oh my god! . . . My neck! . . . I need help! . . . Get me an ambulance immediately! . . . I can't fucking believe you did that!” (Guthrie Dash Camera 4:40-5:15.) Defendant first called his supervisor, Sergeant Stanfull, who advised him to call for an ambulance, which Defendant subsequently did. (Petersen Dep. 71-72.) In the approximately four or five minutes before Defendant called for an ambulance, Officer Geiser “held C-spine” on Plaintiff, meaning he held his head and neck in place. (Id. at 70.)
Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Bronson Hospital in Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Police Rep., PageID.157-160 ().) Officer Geiser rode in the ambulance with him, and Defendant followed in his patrol car. (Petersen Dep. 75.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with neck pain and instructed to take Motrin or Tylenol as needed. (Police Rep., PageID.157.) Once discharged, Defendant took Plaintiff to the Kalamazoo County Jail where he was charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer. (Id., PageID.144.)
After the foregoing events, Szpak advised Defendant that she would be concerned for her safety when Plaintiff was released from jail because she feared he would retaliate against her. (Police Rep., PageID.148.) She also indicated that approximately one year prior, Plaintiff had pinned her down to the ground, but she did not report this instance of domestic violence. (Id.; Szpak Dep. 36-37.)
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is genuinely disputed when there is “sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id. at 249 (citing First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. City Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1961)). Summary judgment is not an opportunity for the Court to resolve factual disputes. Id. The Court “must shy away from weighing the evidence and instead view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in their favor.” Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 999 F.3d 400, 410 (6th Cir. 2021).
“This standard of review remains the same for reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment.” Ohio State Univ. v. Redbubble, Inc., 989 F.3d 435, 441 (6th Cir. 2021). “[A] case involving cross-motions for summary judgment requires ‘evaluat[ing] each party's motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration.” Id. at 442 (quoting EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421, 425 (6th Cir. 2019)).
To continue reading
Request your trial