NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0043n.06 Filed: January 17, 2006 No. 05-3058 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PAULETTA L. LAVENDER; CHERISE LAVENDER and CASSANDRA LAVENDER, by Next Friend, Pauletta Lavender, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. CITY OF BLUE ASH et al., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Pauletta Lavender brought this § 1983 action on behalf of herself and her two daughters, charging the defendants, tw o municipalities and various local police officers with violating their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for false arrest and under state law for intenti onal infliction of emotional distress. She appeals the district court’s order grant ing summary judgment to the defendants. The incident that gave rise to the litigation occurred w hen a patrol officer from Blue Ash, Ohio, spotted a vehicle that appeared to meet the description from an all-pointsbulletin radioed about 45 minutes earlier of a get away car that was involved in an armedNo. 05-3058 Lavender v. City of Blue Ash

- 2 - bank robbery in Norwood, Ohio. The officer recalled that the car was described as a “boxy,” “older police cruiser type vehicle, color white” with an unusual “driver’s side spotlight” common to police cars and that it contained two o ccupants. Calling for back-up, he followed and then stopped the ca r, which was being driven by Pauletta Lavender and in which her two daughters were passengers. Officers who converged on the suspicious vehicle ordered Lavender out ofher car at gunpoint and handcu ffed her while they called for further information about the suspect in the bank robbery.

The officers then determined that the act ual robber was a white male in his 30s, while Lavender was female and African-Amer ican but, significantly, the police had no description of the getaway car’s driver, eitheras to race or gender. As it turned out, Lavender had no connection with t he robbery or the robber. U ndoubtedly, her unexpected encounter with the Blue Ash police officers was upsetting to her and to her two children, aged 10 and 16, but the video-tape of the incident, taken by a camera in the patrol car, established that the ent ire encounter lasted 20 minutes, that Pauletta Lavender was out of her car for a total of eight minutes, and thatshe was hand-cuffed for only four minutes of that time, while officers searched the inside ofthe car and its trunk to make sure that the robber was not in the car.

The district court held that there was no constitutional violation because the initial stop, viewed in light of all the circumstances, was supported by the reasonable suspicion required by Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and because the officers who detained theNo. 05-3058 Lavender v. City of Blue Ash

- 3 - plaintiff had a reasonable belief that an armed robber might have been in the car, thereby justifying both the level of force used by the officers to secure the scene and the thoroughness of their search. In its analysis underlying the grant of summary judgment to the defendants, the district court relied heavily on our decision in Houston v. Clark County Sheriff Deputy John Does 1-5, 174 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1999), in which we held in a § 1983 action similar to this one that an office r’s stop of the wrong car under circumstances reflecting an honest mistake based upon reasonable suspicion did not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that officers stopped her car solely because of her race, thereby violating her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Alternatively, the district court also f ound that even if the plaintiff could have made out a constitutional violation, the individual o fficers would be entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff had failed to demonstr ate that, under the circumstances, they had acted in an objectively unreasonable fashion. In addition, the court hel d that the plaintiff had failed to establish a § 1983 claim against the municipal defendants or the officers in their official capacities. Having studied the record on appeal and the br iefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in gr anting summary judgment to all defendants. Because the reasons for the order have been fullyarticulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no usefulNo. 05-3058 Lavender v. City of Blue Ash

- 4 - purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgm ent of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opi nion and order dated November 22, 2004.