CA6: No reasonable officer could conclude there was PC for pft’s arrest

“When reviewing the information known to Seidl at the time of Zavatson’s arrest, we conclude that no reasonable officer could have believed, based on anything more than speculation, that Zavatson had committed the purported theft. As an initial matter, there is no direct connection between Zavatson and the theft.” Multiple people were all potential suspects, and no individual could be identified. “Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that Seidl made deliberately false statements and intentional omissions in his warrant application that were material to Odgers’s finding of probable cause. For example, in the ‘Summary of Offense’ in his warrant request, Seidl stated that video surveillance showed Zavatson committing the crime, which it did not; Seidl stated that the theft occurred on a particular date and time, when in fact that information was uncertain; and Seidl failed to note that video surveillance placed Zavatson at the opposite end of the school three minutes after the suspect exited Sonnenfeld’s office.” Thus, he gets no qualified immunity. Zavatson v. City of Warren, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21859 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017).

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.