Action under 42 USC § 1983 alleging fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecution, & withholding of exculpatory evidence; Qualified immunity; Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim; Clark v Abdallah; Fourth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim; Probable cause; Criminal sexual conduct (CSC); Breaking & entering (B & E); Brady v Maryland claim; Hughbanks v Hudson

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendants-police officers were properly granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to plaintiff-Lackey’s § 1983 claims for fabricating evidence, malicious prosecution, and withholding exculpatory evidence. His convictions of CSC and B & E were vacated due to defects in the evidence. He then filed this action. The district court concluded that defendants-Hurley, Beard, Smith, and Burton were entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, the court first addressed his Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of-evidence claim. He asserted “that the officers fabricated two pieces of evidence that led to his convictions” – the physical description of the perpetrator given by the victim (S.S.) and her “description of the assailant’s ‘blue steel handgun.’” The court rejected both arguments. Hurley did not testify at trial, and Lackey could not show that his actions affected the verdict. As to the other officers, while there was “evidence that S.S. did not tell anyone the assailant was black,” there was no dispute that her mother (C) “told the officers that S.S. said” that, and C conveyed this “to the jury. So the jury heard S.S.’s description of the assailant’s race apart from the officers’ testimony.” As to the gun, Smith’s description of it “in his report had no impact on the jury’s decision to convict Lackey” given that Smith did not testify about the perpetrator having such a gun, Lackey was not charged with a gun crime, and “evidence of a gun was not necessary to convict him of the charged crimes.” As to his Fourth Amendment fabrication claim, the court held that there was probable cause for both the CSC and B & E charges. He “matched the description [S.S.] provided, he lived behind her house, and” a police tracking dog led an officer “to Lackey from S.S.’s backyard.” Further, the statements of S.S. and C, “the physical evidence corroborating them, and the evidence establishing probable cause that Lackey sexually assaulted S.S. suffice to establish probable cause to believe that” he committed B & E. Given the existence of probable cause, his malicious prosecution claim also failed. Finally, the court found his Brady violation claim meritless. The “officers armed Lackey with the information he says he needed; it was his job to characterize it, not theirs.” Affirmed.