42 USC § 1983; Fourth Amendment false arrest, false imprisonment, & malicious prosecution claims; Claim that defendant-police officer falsified information used to obtain the search warrant; “Probable cause”; Qualified immunity; Effect of the fact that the searched premises belonged to plaintiff’s mother; “Clearly established” law; Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for failure to comply with Brady v Maryland; Michigan state law claims for gross negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment, & malicious prosecution; Governmental immunity

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that, taking the case as framed by the parties, plaintiff-Chancellor could not show that defendant-police officer (Geelhood) lied in the search warrant affidavit and thus, could not overcome Geelhood’s qualified immunity defense. And given that he sought “to hold Geelhood liable for his arrest and prosecution” resulting from the alleged violation of “his mother’s privacy rights[,]” the court added that it was “certainly not clearly established that an officer could be liable in such circumstances.” It also rejected his due process and Michigan state law claims. Geelhood obtained a warrant to search Chancellor’s mother’s home based on tips and surveillance, and found drugs and firearms. Chancellor “was arrested, prosecuted, and eventually sentenced . . . for possession of illegal narcotics. Seven years” into his sentence, “the local prosecutor’s office vacated his conviction via a stipulated order. Chancellor then sued” Geelhood, bringing both federal and state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, as well as a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for failure to follow Brady and a state law gross negligence claim. The district court granted Geelhood summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the federal claims and governmental immunity on three of the state claims, in addition to finding that Chancellor failed to state a gross negligence claim. On appeal, the court rejected his claim that there was no probable cause to search based on Geelhood’s allegedly false search warrant affidavit information. It agreed with the district court that Chancellor did not supply “evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on” this claim, and thus could not overcome the qualified immunity defense. Geelhood based the affidavit on “a confidential informant and independent surveillance. Taken together, these sources provided probable cause to search the house.” The court further noted that even if he “had put forth a triable issue on whether the search warrant lacked probable cause, it is not clear to us how that would show a direct violation of Chancellor’s constitutional rights.” The search warrant was for his mother’s home. His defense in the criminal case was that he “did not live at that house and was not there the night of Geelhood’s surveillance. Chancellor has maintained that position in this § 1983 suit. That poses a problem for [his] ability to show that he is the ‘a direct victim’ of a constitutional tort.” The court also held that his due process claim failed where he did not “show that Geelhood suppressed any Brady information in this case.” Affirmed.