The Honor able Solomon Oliver, Jr., United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0533n.06 No. 08-1522 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
GREGO RY J . PAPIE RZ, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. SCOTT JACK SON; BRYAN ERG ANG , Defendants-A

ppellee s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN O P I N I O N

BEFORE: M OORE an d WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and O LIVER, District Judge. * SOL OMON OLIV E R, JR., Distric t Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant, Gr eg ory J . Papierz (“Papie rz”), appea ls the order of the district cour

t gr anting summary

judgme n t i n favor

of De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s, Of

fi c e r S c ott

Jac ks on (“ Of fi c e r Jac ks on ” ) and

Se rg e ant B ryan E rg ang(“ Sg t. Erg ang ”) ( collectively , the “Of fice rs”) , on Papierz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for an alleg ed violation of his F ourt h A me ndme nt ri g ht to be fr e e fr om an un re a so na ble se arc h. F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , we AF F IRM the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORYNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-2- On Fe bruar

y 16, 2006, at around 10:00 p.m., Papierz was on his way to a bowling alley when he de c ide d to stop a t a fri e nd ’s a pa rtme nt to se e if he wa

nte d to a c c omp any

him . ( Joint

Ap pe nd ix (“J.A.”) at 131.) On his way there , Papierz stopped at a convenie nce store and purcha sed a G atora de
as well as a

packe t of herba l male enha nceme nt pills . (

Id. ) A f te r le a v in g th e c o n v enienc e store, Papierz drove to his frie nd ’s apa rtment. Both Of

fice r Jackson and Sg t. Erg angwer e wor king separ ately on routine road patrol in Kalamazoo, Michiga n that evening , when, a ccor ding to the Offic ers, they

observe d Papierz’s pick-up truc k trave ling with only its parking lights on and not the headlig hts. (J .A. at 48, 86.) The Offic ers sig naled to him to stop. ( Id .) Pa pie rz p ull e d in to h is friend’ s drivewa

y , and the Of

fice rs pulled in behind hi m. (J .A. at 49, 87, 132.) When Papier z got out of his vehicle, the O ffice rs appr oache d him and reque sted that he p ro d u ce a d ri ver’ s license. (J.A . a t 51 , 8 8, 13 3. ) T he Of

fi c e rs the n co nta c te d disp a tc h, wh o ran Pap ie rz’ s n ame and date of bir th throug h the L aw Enf

orce ment Information Ne twork (“ L EI N”) . (J.A. at 51, 88.) The dispat cher i n fo rmed the O ffice rs that ac cordingto L EI N, Papierz had a

suspended a

nd expired license. (

Id. ) Papierz there afte r consented t o be searche d by the Off icer s. Acc ordingto the I nvestig ation Report completed by

the Off icer s, they

found seve ral pills in his le ft front pocket, which included the male e nhance ment pills, as well as wha t t h e Of fice rs desc ribe a s an unknown pill in a clea r plastic ca psule. (J.A. at 108.) After completing this search , t h e Of fi cer s handcuf

fed Papie rz and place d him in the back of a patrol ca r. (J.A. at 134.) They

then sea rche d his car but f

ound nothing
s u s p ic io u s . T h e y ma in ta in , h o w e v e r , th a t th e y f o u n d s e v e r a l p il ls o n th e g r o u n d n e ar Papie rz’s vehicle, w hich wer e identica l to the unknown pill found in his pocket. ( J .A. at 108.) Offic er Jackson then drove to the local hospital, wher e a doc tor alleg edly identified t he pil ls as Vicodin. (J .A. at 54.)No. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-3- Whe n O ff ic e r Ja c ks on

re tur ne d with thi s inf

or ma tio n, Sg t. Er g ang re a d Pap ie rz h is Miranda rig hts, wh i ch h e waived. (J.A. at 134-35.) Sg t. Erg angthen beg an questioning him about the Vicodin alleg edly

found nea

r his car . (J.A. at 90.) Papierz replied that the pills found on the gr ound
wer e not his, but that he had a presc ription for Vicodin due to a re cent he art surg ery . (J.A. at 135.) Papierz later admitted that he had a bott le of Vic odin in the truck duringthis incident, but maintained that the pills that the Office rs alleg edly found on the g round we re not his. (J.A. at 133.) Whil e Sg t. Erg angcontinued to question Papierz, Offic er Ja ck s o n approa ched Cameron Alg e r an d h is w if e , H o ll ie , w h o li v e d

n e ar b y an d w e r e w a tc h in g an d

v id e o ta p in g th e in te rac tion betwee n the Off

icer s and Pap i erz . (J.A. at 57, 90.) Offic er Jackson aske d them if they observe d Papierz throw narcotics on the ground. (J.A. at 57.) Offic er J ackson admits that they responde d that they saw the O ffice rs plant the drug s on the g round, and the neig hbors indicated to the Offic ers that they videotaped the se ac tions. (J.A. at 57.) Sgt. Erg angalso admits that he then lied to Papierz by t el l i n g h i m t h at the neig hbors said that they saw him throw the pills on the g round and that they
w o u l d t e s t i f y a g a i n s th i m t o t h i s e f

f e c t
. ( J. A
. a t9 0

- 9 1
. ) C o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e n e i g hb o r s ’ a c c o u n t, Papierz maintained that the Vic odin on the g round did not belong to him. (J .A. at 227-28.) After a for ty -five minute investig ation, the Off icer s issued Papierz a civil i nfra ction for driving without his headlights on af ter da rk. (J.A. at 155.) Upon re leasing Papierz, the Off icer s advised him that they

would continue to investig ate the V icodin issue as we ll as whether he wa s driving without a valid license. ( J .A. at 93-94.) After the Off icer s consulted the township prosec utor about P apier z, they decide d not to further investigate hi s alleg ed il leg al possession of the Vic odin. (J.A. at 157.) They

did, however , issue a modified c itation to Papierz that added the misdemeanorNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-4- offe nse of dr iving with a suspe nded license . (J.A. at 160.) Papierz was not cha rg ed in conne ction with the Vicodin. On Fe bruar

y 2, 2007, Papierz filed the instant a ction in the United States District Court for the Wes te rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig an, a sse rt inga c la im fo r fa lse arr e st und e r state law as we ll as a c la im
un de r 4 2 U .S. C. § § 1 98 3 a nd 19 85 fo r v iol a tio ns of

his ri g hts un de r t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt. (J.A. at 11.) In his Compl aint, Papierz alleg es that the Offic ers planted false evidenc e ag ainst him in an attempt to frame him for a c rime he did not c o m m i t
. (J
. A. at 9 .) He further alleg es that he w as
arr ested by

the Off icer s without probable ca use. (J.A. at 10.) Th e r e a f t e r , t h e O f

f i c e r s f i l e d a M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s P u r s u an t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f Civ il Procedur e 12(b) (6) or

Alternatively , Motion for Summary J udg ment Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedur e 56(c ). (J.A. at 16.) The O ffice rs soug ht dismi ssal of Papierz’s F ourth Amendment claim on the g rounds that the stop and fr isk was re asonable p u rs u an t t o a v ali d stop and that the subsequent sea

rch of the ca r wa s valid beca

use it wa s incident to his arr est. (J.A. at 31.) I n addition, they noted that Papierz g ave his c onsent to the sear ch of his per son. ( Id. ) They further argued that
e v e ni f t h e y c o n d

u c t e d anu n r e a s o n a

b l e s e ar c h o f P a

p i e r z , t h e y w e r e e n t i t l e d

t o qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. (J.A. at 39.) L astly , they soug ht dismiss al of P apier z’s state law cla im for fa lse arr est, as the Of fice rs had proba ble ca use to arr est him based on the t wo m isdemeanor traff ic offe nses that wer e discove red duri ngthe tr a ff

ic sto p. (J.A
. a t 41 .) I n his re sp on se to the Mo tio n, Pa pie rz w ith dr e w h is f

a lse a rr e st claim under

state law, c oncedingthat the fa cts did not support this claim. (J .A. at 219.) The district cour

t then held a motion hear ing r eg ardingthe re maining issues. (J.A. at 229.) At this he aring , Papierz’s counsel emphasized that he was not c ontesting the leg ali t y o f t h e st op,No. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-5- arr e st, and

se arc h o f h is c ar. (J.A . at 24 2. ) H e a lso no te d th a t “ [t] hi s is a sear ch case . I t’ s n ot a seizure ca se.” (

Id .) Counsel clar ified that Papierz was a lleg ing that an unre asonable sear ch occ urre d when the O ffice rs planted the V icodin on the g round outside of Papierz’s car. ( J .A. at 245.) After hear ing the arguments of the parties, the district c ourt first stated on the r ecor d that the Offic ers’ Te rry stop was proper as well as the Officer s’ arrest of Papierz and subsequent searc h of his car. T he cour

t found that the Offic ers clea rly had proba

ble ca use base d on their re asonable belief that he c omm itt e d tw o a

rr e sta ble mis de me ano rs un de r M ic hig an la w, dr ivi ngwi tho ut a

va lid lic e ns e and driving at night without headlig hts. The c ourt noted, howe ver, that it did not need to make such
a ru lin g a s Pa

pie rz w a s n ot c on te sti ngthe tr a ff ic sto p, arr e st, or

se arc h o f h is c ar in ciden t to his
arr est. (J.A. at 255-56.) The court then held that fra ming a citizen with planted evidence when the c harg e does not
a c tua lly “ c ome to f

ru iti on ” is n ot a

c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n und e r eithe r t he F ourt h o r F ourt e e nth Amendment. (J.A. at 258.) The court further found that had the fr aming actua lly “come to fruition,” the Four th Amendment still would not be implicated a s there is no right unde r this Amendment for a citizen to be fre e fr om an attempt on the par t of police off

icer s to frame him. (

Id. ) I ns te a d, it would be a violation of his due pr ocess r ights unde r the F ourtee nth Amendment. (J.A. at 258.) L astly , the cour

t held, in the alternative, t hat qualified immunit y protec ted t he Of fice rs from l i a b i l i t y. (J.A. at 261.) Specifica lly , he found that, even if the Offic ers’ actio n s d id constitute a vio l at i o n u n d er the Four

th Amendment, this right wa s not clear ly established. (J.A. at 262.) The
c ourt e mph a size d that po lice have g re a t di sc re tio n in “ the ir a bil ity to u se ru se s, to u se and

lie to citizens . . . [ to] try

to esca late what the y think they have on a person.” (J.A. at 259). B a se d o n th isNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-6- ana ly sis , th e c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f t he Of fi c e rs . (J.A . at 14. ) Pap ie rz t ime ly
a pp e a le d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Or de r, arguin g that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in its ruling with re g ard to the Four th Amendment and qua lified immunit y . II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW A district court’s de cision to gr ant a motion for summary judgme nt is subject to de novo revie w. Litt le v. BP Explorati on & Oil Co. , 265 F.3d 357, 361 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Summ ary judgme nt is proper if the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, and admissions on file, tog ether
w it h an y a f f id a v it s s h o w th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f mate r ia l f a c t. F e d
. R. Ci v. P. 56(c); LaPointe v. UAW

Local 600 , 8 F.3d 376, 378 ( 6th Cir. 1993).

III . LA W A ND AN AL YSI S The fa cts at issue her e ar e distingu i s h ab l e fr om a ty pical ca se involving a

police off

icer
acc used of planting false evidenc e. Gene rally , police off icer s are acc used of plantingevidenc e on a victim as a ba sis to arrest the vic tim and/or to charg e him with an offe nse conne cted to the plante d evidenc e. The victims then ty pically challeng e t he constitutionality of the a rre st or the cha

rg es broug ht in connection with the planted e vidence
. Se e, e .g ., Sp ur loc k v . S att e rfi e ld , 16 7 F. 3 d 995, 1005 (6th Cir. 1999); LaBoy v. Zuley , 747 F. S u p p . 1284, 1286-89 (N.D . I ll. 1990) (finding that pla int if f c ou ld purs ue a Se c tio n 1 98 3 c la im und e r t he F ourt h a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt a g a ins t of fi c e rs wh o a lle g e dly

pla nte d f a lse e vid e nc e in or de r to ar re st an d pro se c ute the vic tim ); se e als o United States v. Epley , 5 2 F.3d 571, 576 ( 6th Cir. 1995) (holding that where office rs planted evidenc e on victim as a me ans to arr est and cha rg e him, the offic er violate d his Fourth Amendme ntNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-7- ri g ht t o b e fr e e fr om s e izur e wi tho ut p ro ba ble c a us e and du e pr oc e ss r ig hts to be fr e e fr om f a lse
arr est and having f

alse e vidence prese nted ag ainst him). He re , h ow e ve r, P api erz was no t c ha rg e d in c on ne c tio n w iththe a lle g e dly pla nte d V ic od in and does not challeng e his arr est. He a lso conce des that the Of fice rs had a

basis to conduct a se arc h of his c ar a nd his pe rs on . P api e rz, ins te a d, c on te nd s th a t th e Of fi c e rs c on du c te d a

n unr e a so na

ble
sear ch under

the Four th Amendment by planting false evidence
. The c ourt, there fore , is presente d with the limit ed issue of whether the Off icer s’ purporte d conduct of planting V icodin on the g round, in a pu bli c pla c e ne ar P a

pie rz’ s c ar w ith ou t c ha

rg inghim or arr e sti nghim

fo r a ny c ri me re la te d to the drug s, g ives rise to an unrea sonable searc h in violation of t he Fourth Amendment. We find that these pa rticular c ircumstance s do not. Th e F ourt h A me ndme nt r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: The rig ht of the people to be secur e in their pe rsons, houses, pape rs, and eff ects, a g ainst unrea sonable searc hes and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon proba ble ca use, supported by

Oath or af fi rm ati on, and par

ticularly descr ibing the pla ce to be sear ched, a nd the persons or thing s to be seized. U. S. C O N ST . ame nd

I V. I t is we ll- se ttl e d th a t th e F ourt h A me ndme nt p ro te c ts a g a ins t unre a so na ble intrusions int o are as where one has a r easona ble expectation of priva cy . See, e .g., Katz v. United States , 3 89 U. S. 3 47 , 3 60 (1 96 7) ; W idgren v. Maple Grov e Twp. , 429 F.3d 575, 578 ( 6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hoppe r , 5 8 F . App ’x 61 9, 62 3 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) (“ Th e tou c hs ton e of F ourt h Amendment analy sis is whether a person has a constitutionally protec ted, reasonable e x pectation of privac y .”) ( citation omitted). The Six th Circuit has held that “[a]n indi vi d u al m ay o n l y claim the protec tion of t h e Fo u rt h Am endment if he has a leg itimate expectation of privac y in the premisesNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-8- being sear ched.” United States v. Stuck ey , 2 5 3 F. Ap p ’x 4 6 8 , 4 7 9 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Kat z , 389 U.S. at 347). I n th e ins tant c a se , Pa

pie rz’ s c la im fa ils ini tia lly up on ana ly sis of the lang ua g e of the F ourt h Amendment itself, as the Offic ers’ conduct of planting drug s on the g round in a public plac e did not involve any

intrusion of Papierz’s person, home, pa pers, or ef fec ts. See U.S. Const. amend I V. Th is conclusion that no F ourth Amendment violation occ urre d is further s u p p o r te d by case law construing the bounds of the Four

th A mendment. The Six th Circ uit has established that a pe rson does not have
a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o no f

p r i v a c y w h i l e o na

f r i e n d ’ s p r o p e rt y, i nw h i c h t h e p e r s o n i s m e r e l y a short-term visitor. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . B e rry hil l , 35 2 F .3 d 31 5, 31 7 (6 th Cir
. 20 03 ) ( “ [A] c a su a l, transient visitor does not have a re asonable expectation of privac y in his host’s home.”) . Papierz was
mere ly stopping by

a fr iend’s apa

rtment to see if the friend w anted to ac company him to the bowling
a lle y and ha d n o r e a so na

ble e xpe c ta tio n o f pri vacy in t he dr ive wa

y of his fr ie nd ’s a

pa rtme nt. F ur the rm or e , th is C ir c uit

ha s h e ld t

hat a pe rs on a lso la c ks a

re a so na ble e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y in items lay ing in the public’ s view. See United States v. Mc Clendon , 86 F. App’x 92, 94-95 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( d i s cu s s i n g Un ite d S tat es v . O swa ld , 783 F.2d 663 ( 6th Cir. 1986) and United States v. Rumph , No. 97-3135, 1998 U.S. App. L EXI S 9584 (6th Cir. May 8, 1998)). The drug s, in this case, we re purportedly

place d openly on the g round, available for public view. Thus, the Off icer s’ purporte d
c o n d u c td i d n o ti n v a d e P a

p i e r z ’ s r e a s o n a

b l e e x p e c t a t i o no f

p r i v a c y. Th e c ourt e mph a size s, ho we ve r, that this h old ingwi th r e g ard to t he F ourt h A me ndme nt i s limit ed to the par

ticular c ircumstance s of the ins tant case . Whil e the Of fice rs have broadly

argued that a pe rs on ne ve r h a s a

re a so nab le e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y un de r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt i nNo. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-9- ci r c u ms ta n c e s w h e r e ano f

f ic e r p la n ts e v id e n c e o no n e ’ s p e r s o no r e f f e c ts b u t d o e s n o t a

r r e s t or char g e the pe rson as a

result, we ne ed not addr ess this issue. At oral a rg ument, the par

ties discussed at leng th whether t h e Of fi cer s’ purporte d conduct g ave r ise to other constitutional violations. This issue, howeve r, is be y ond the scope of the instant
a c tio n. As pr ov ide d in

the Com pla int and a s Pap ie rz h a s r e pe a te dly c on c e de d thro ug ho ut t

he c ours e of thi s li tig a tio n, Pa

pie rz p ur su e d a

c la im und e r o nly

th e Four th A me ndme nt f

or an unr e a so na

ble
sear ch. Whil e counsel for Papierz at oral argument formally reque sted leave to amend the Complaint to add a due proce s s claim, we de ny this request as Papierz had ample time and opportunity to do
so be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt . A c c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in c on c lud ingthat no F ourt h Amendment violation for a n unrea sonable sea

rch oc curr ed. P a p i e r z a l s o o b

j e c t s t o t h e c o u rt ’ s r

u l i n g t h a tt h e O f

f i c e r s w e r e e n t i t l e d

t o qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. B e c a us e Pa pie rz’ s Se c tio n 1 98 3 c la im fa ils un de r the F ourt h Ame ndme nt, we fi nd it unn e c e ssa ry to
r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f

qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. IV . C ON CL USI ON We AF F IRM the dis tr ic t court ’s or de r g ra nti ngsu mma

ry jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f D e fe nd a nts
Ap pe lle e s o n Pl a int if

f- Ap pe lla nt’ s Se c tio n 1 98 3 c la im und e r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt. B e c a

us e P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l an t ’ s c l a i m f

a i l s o n t h e m e r i t s , w e d e c l i n e t o r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y.No. 08-1522

Pa pie rz v . J ac k so n, e t al

.

-10- KA RE N NE LSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge, concurr ing in the judgm ent. Iwr ite separ ately t o express my conce rn re g ardingthe police of fice rs’ a lleg ed conduc t in this case . Although the unique circ umstances of this case pr event us fr om rea ching t h e issue, I believe that po li c e o f f ic e r s a c t u n r e a s o n a

b ly w h e n th e y p la

n t e v id e n c e an d th a t s u c h b e h a v io r raises
c on sti tut ion a l is su e s.