False arrest & imprisonment; 42 USC § 1983; “Probable cause” for an arrest; Qualified immunity; Municipal liability; Monell v Department of Soc Servs; Single-incident liability

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants-arresting officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff-Harris and thus, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. But it concluded defendant-City of Saginaw was properly granted summary judgment on his municipal liability claim. The police arrested Harris for allegedly making a false 911 report that a store clerk had pulled a gun on him. He spent 18 days in jail. He sued for false arrest and false imprisonment. As to the denial of qualified immunity to the on-the-scene officers, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Harris, the court determined the facts showed they decided to arrest him “before conducting an investigation.” It noted that the officer (defendant-Nelson) “who made the decision to arrest Harris ‘based on his statements,’ called him a ‘f*cking liar’ before he even spoke.” Defendant-LaDouce called Harris’s “story ‘bull sh*t’ before” he even spoke to the store clerks. Thus, a jury could decide that the officers “made a ‘hasty, unsubstantiated arrest’ accompanied only by what was, at most, a farce of an investigation.” It also found a jury could conclude the “officers were ‘simply turn[ing] a blind eye toward potentially exculpatory evidence’ in order to arrest Harris.” Considering the fact-specific questions at the center of the inquiry, “whether a reasonable officer would have believed they had probable cause to arrest Harris is better left for the jury.” As to whether each officer was involved in the arrest, the record showed that both Nelson and defendant-Lautner were “directly involved,” and LaDouce and defendant-Cece, although not directly involved, were “equally liable because they both failed to intervene when they had reason to question whether probable cause existed and physically arrested Harris.” Under § 1983, officers who are just “following orders” may be liable if they should have questioned the validity of the order. Thus, all four officers were personally involved, and because there was reason to believe the “arrest violated Harris’s clearly established constitutional right, none of” them were entitled to qualified immunity. As to the officers’ mistake of fact argument, although “an arrest without probable cause due to a mistake of fact is not per se unreasonable” the court concluded that whether “a reasonable officer would have interpreted Harris’s accounts as inconsistent is a question of fact” warranting submission to a jury. As to municipal liability, “neither the failure to train nor failure to supervise analysis reveals any genuine disputes of material fact[.]” Affirmed.