Wright v. Benjamin
| Decision Date | 28 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-CV-639 |
| Parties | HEATHER McLEOD (formerly Wright), individually and as next friend for CPW, a female minor, SPW, a male minor and KEW, a female minor, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL BENJAMIN, MICHAEL SALMEN, KEVIN ROD, ROBERT BILACIC, DAVID BOWER, THOMAS DRAVES, JAMES LASS, ANDREW BUCKHOLTZ, UNKNOWN CMET OFFICER #1, UNKNOWN CMET OFFICER #2, UNKNOWN CMET OFFICER #3, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
On June 20, 2012, Defendant Andrew Buckholtz obtained a warrant to search the residence at 4602 Charles Road in Ionia County and all vehicles, outbuildings, and camping trailers located on the property. (ECF No. 39-4 at PageID.432.) The warrant authorized a search for Robert Conley, a suspected methamphetamine manufacturer and distributor, as well as fruits and instrumentalities of a medical marijuana grow operation. (Id.)
Buckholtz's affidavit was based primarily on information provided to Buckholtz by Detective Sergeant Morey. (Id.) Paragraph M1 of the affidavit seems to state that a ConfidentialSource (CS) told Detective Morey about Conley and the marijuana, and that Detective Morey relayed this information to Buckholtz, who then relayed it to the State magistrate. Paragraphs P through U detail what the CS "advised," but Buckholtz does not claim to have heard this information first hand. In Paragraph Z2 Buckholtz claims to have personally interviewed the CS, and Buckholtz gives no detail as to what the CS may have said in an interview.
A magistrate issued the warrant, and Morey contacted Defendant Detective/Sergeant Michael Benjamin of the Michigan State Police and requested an Emergency Support Team (EST) to aid in the execution of the warrant. (ECF No. 44-8 at PageID.774.)
The EST executed the warrant early in the morning of June 21, 2012. The team first located Conley in a trailer on the property and secured him with handcuffs. (ECF No. 45-4 at PageID.857.) The team then moved in to search the Wright residence itself. McLeod and her three children were in the house at the time. Plaintiff SPW is McLeod's son and was about eight years old; he was asleep in his own room when the EST entered the house. (ECF No. 44-5 at PageID.727.) Plaintiff CPW is McLeod's oldest daughter, and was eleven years old; she was asleep in her room with KEW at the time of the search. (ECF No. 44-1 at PageID.644.) Plaintiff KEW is McLeod's youngest daughter; two years old at the time of the search. (Id.)
The team entered the house through an unlocked sliding door on the porch and almost immediately encountered McLeod in the living room of the house. (ECF No. 44-1 at PageID.643.) An unidentified member of the team ordered McLeod to lie face down on the ground; she complied and a team member cuffed her hands behind her back. (Id.) Other members of the team continued to search the rest of the house. Some number of the Defendants entered SPW's room. (ECF No. 44-5 at PageID.736.) One of these Defendants pulled SPW from his bed and pushed SPW against a wall in his room. (Id.) CEW and KPW emerged from their room and joined McLeod in the living room area. (ECF No. 44-1 at PageID.644.) SPW came out of his room and entered the living room shortly thereafter. (Id.).
McLeod testified that she was lying face-down on the ground with her hands cuffed behind her back when a member of the EST pulled her wrists upwards to lift her up to her feet. (ECF No. 44-1 at PageID.635; 644.) McLeod was unable to identify the specific person who pulled on her wrists, only recalling that the person was wearing black, did not have camouflage, and was holding a weapon, rather than a shield. (Id. at PageID.670.) The pulling on her wrists caused a great deal of pain in her shoulder. (Id. at PageID.669.)
SPW testified that he saw a policeman "help her up" off of the ground, but did not see if this caused any kind of injury or pain. (ECF No. 44-5 at PageID.746.)
Defendant Bower testified that he never saw anyone actually cuff McLeod or pull her up from the ground, but that he saw Defendant Benjamin "addressing" and "securing" her. (ECF No. 45-2 at PageID.827.) None of the other officers recalled who handcuffed McLeod, who helped her to her feet, or what, if any, injury this caused. (ECF No. 44-8 at PageID.782; ECF No. 45-1 at PageID.811; ECF No. 45-3 at PageID.850; ECF No. 45-4 at PageID.863; ECF No. 45-5 at PageID.872; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.883; ECF No. 45-7 at PageID.895.)
This same Defendant directed McLeod to sit on a couch and removed her handcuffs. McLeod and the three children remained on the couch while the team finished clearing the house. (Id. at PageID.645.) Other investigators moved into the house to continue executing the search, and the EST moved out. The EST Defendants spent a total of about ten minutes inside the Wright residence. (ECF No. 44-3 at PageID.688.)
Count I of the complaint, on behalf of all Plaintiffs against all Defendants, alleges that the search of the Wright residence was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.10.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the warrant was invalid due to a flawed affidavit and the search was otherwise without probable cause or an exception to the warrant requirement. (Id.) Defendant Buckholtz argues that Plaintiffs' claims are Heck-barred, and that Buckholtz is otherwise entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 32 at PageID.210.)
"[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been" invalidated in some way. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) (footnote omitted). A plaintiff is entitled to an exception to Heck's "favorable-termination" requirement if he or she "was precluded 'as a matter of law' from seeking habeas redress." Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm'n, 501 F.3d 592, 601 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 705 (9th Cir.2006)). A plaintiff can be precluded from seeking habeas redress where, as here, he or she is only incarcerated for a very brief time. Id. at 603. McLeod need not satisfy Heck because she only spent a single day in jail, paid a fine, and did not receive probation. (ECF No. 44-1 filed at PageID.631.) See Id. ()
Heck is inapposite as to CPW, SPW, and KEW. The children were not even charged with a crime and, therefore, cannot have a conviction invalidated.
Buckholtz is entitled to qualified immunity because any misrepresentations he made were not material. To overcome a claim of qualified immunity by an officer who applied for a search warrant, plaintiffs must make "(1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) that the allegedly false or omitted information was material to the finding of probable cause." Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir. 1989)). To satisfy the materiality requirement, a plaintiff "must show that the judge would not have issued the warrant without the allegedly false" information. Id.
The substantive parts of the affidavit describe the information Buckholtz learned from Morey, and that Morey had learned the information from a CS. That is, the affidavit describes two "levels" of hearsay. Buckholtz's statement that he personally interviewed the CS comes at the very end of the affidavit, and he does not describe what information, if any, he learned from the CS. The claim neither adds to nor detracts from any other part of the affidavit - it simply appears as an appendage. The magistrate issued the warrant based on the CS's hearsay through Morey. Buckholtz's claim could not be necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial