1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALAN THIBAULT

Plaintiff, Case No. 

-vs- Hon.

EDWARD WIERSZEWSKI,

individually and in his official 

capacity as a Public Safety Officer

Defendant.

________________________________/

Ari Kresch (P29593)

Solomon M. Radner (P73653)

1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 400

Southfield, MI 48033

(248) 291-9719

sradner@1800lawfirm.com

________________________________/

There is no other pending or resolved civil action

between these parties arising out of the same

transaction or occurrence alleged in this complaint.

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, ALAN THIBAULT, by and through his 

attorneys ARI KRESCH, SOLOMON M. RADNER and 1-800-LAW-FIRM, 

PLLC, and for his Complaint against the above named Defendant states as follows:

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 14
2

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff ALAN THIBAULT (hereinafter, “Mr. Thibault”) is a resident 

of the County of Monroe, State of Michigan. 

2. Upon information and belief, EDWARD WIERSZEWSKI (hereinafter 

“Defendant Wierszewski”) is a resident of the County of Wayne, State 

of Michigan, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, was employed 

as a public safety officer by the Grosse Pointe Farms Police 

Department, and is being sued individually and in his official capacity. 

3. Defendant Wierszewski was acting under the color of state law at all 

times pertinent to this lawsuit.

4. At the time the events alleged in this Complaint occurred Defendant 

Wierszewski, was not acting in the furtherance of any legitimate 

governmental function. Furthermore, Defendant Wierszewski’s illegal 

and unconstitutional actions were intentional torts. As such, Defendant 

is not entitled to the defense of governmental immunity. 

5. At the time the events alleged in this Complaint occurred, Defendant 

was violating Mr. Thibault’s clearly established Constitutional Rights 

and Defendant’s actions were clearly unreasonable and illegal. As such, 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 14
3

Defendant Wierszewski is not entitled to the defenses of either qualified 

or governmental immunity. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United 

States and jurisdiction is appropriate in Federal District Court under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. 

7. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 

Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) since the substantial part of the 

events that led to this Complaint occurred in said Judicial District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. During the early morning hours December 5, 2014, Mr. Thibault was 

driving a semi-truck in his course of employment, traveling Northwest 

on Moross Ave., on his way to make a delivery to the Wendy’s 

restaurant located at 18800 Mack Avenue in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. 

9. Mr. Thibault began to make turn left onto Public Rd., when he saw 

what he believed to be a “no trucks” sign. Respecting the signage, he 

straightened the truck back onto Moross, and in the process of doing so, 

his truck’s trailer clipped the middle median. 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 14
4

10. Just as he had clipped the median, Mr. Thibault observed two police 

cars traveling past him in the opposite direction, and he correctly 

assumed they were going to stop him to inquire about what had just 

happened, so he activated his hazard lights and began to slow down to 

park his truck on the side of the road. 

11. Immediately thereafter, Defendant Wierszewski and an unknown 

officer made U-turns and pulled behind Mr. Thibault’s truck and 

activated their emergency lights. 

12. Defendant Wierszewski then approached Thibault, still inside his truck, 

and immediately began questioning him about any possible alcohol or 

drug use, all of which Mr. Thibault politely and respectfully denied. 

13. Mr. Thibault then attempted to explain why he did not continue the turn 

onto Public Rd., but Officer Wierszewski did not care to listen to the 

explanation and asked him to step out of the truck so he could search 

him for alcohol, drugs and weapons, and to conduct a field sobriety test, 

all of which Mr. Thibault immediately consented to, without hesitation. 

14. While searching Mr. Thibault, Defendant Wierszewski questioned Mr. 

Thibault as to why he was shivering, to which Mr. Thibault responded 

that he was cold because “it was chilly.” The temperature was only 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 14
5

approximately twenty-five degrees outside that morning, and Mr. 

Thibault was not wearing a coat. 

15. Mr. Thibault then cooperatively completed every request that Officer 

Wierszewski asked of him. The test began at 01:49 and lasted until 

01:59, and at that point Defendant Wierszewski instructed Mr. Thibault 

to wait inside the back of the squad car while he searched the truck.

16. At 02:04, while Mr. Thibault’s truck was being searched, Defendant

Wierszewski’s microphone records the following exchange:

Wierszewski: “I’m not happy.”

Unknown Officer: “Why?”

Wierszewski: “I want something. There better be 

something in here...”

17. After completing the search and finding absolutely no alcohol, illegal 

substances or weapons, at 02:07 Defendant Wierszewski returned to his 

squad car and began questioning Mr. Thibault further, without reading 

him his Miranda rights, asking: 

Wierszewski: “What did you take today? What are you on right 

now?”

Thibault: “Nothing.”

Wierszewski: “I’m going to have to disagree with that. The tests 

that I gave you...you failed those tests. There’s an 

indication that you’ve taken something today you 

shouldn’t have, so I’m going to have the dog come

out and I’m taking you in for operating under the 

influence.”

Thibault: “Okay, but I haven’t taken anything, sir.”

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 04/14/15 Page 5 of 14
6

Wierszewski: “Listen, you’ve taken something today, whether it 

was prescribed, or not prescribed, you’ve taken 

something.”

18. At 02:15, Defendant Wierszewski placed handcuffs on Mr. Thibault 

and told him that he was under arrest for “operating while intoxicated.” 

19. While being transported back to the station by an unknown officer in 

squad car “3T2”, Mr. Thibault questioned the officer regarding why he 

was being arrested since he hadn’t broken any law. The unknown 

officer assured him that if he was sober, he would not be charged of 

committing any crime. The video and audio equipment from this 

particular squad car happened to not be working that evening, according 

to the Grosse Pointe Farms Police Department. 

20. Once back at the station, at 02:44, Mr. Thibault willingly consented to a 

breathalyzer test after which an unknown officer administering the test 

states “all zeros.” 

21. Although Mr. Thibault was charged with operating while intoxicated, 

the results of his breathalyzer test showing absolutely no alcohol in his 

system was left out of the police report and was only learned through

Mr. Thibault’s defense counsel ordering and watching the booking 

video.

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 04/14/15 Page 6 of 14
7

22. At 02:45 Mr. Thibault was interviewed and questioned by Defendant 

Wierszewski further, and Mr. Thibault continued to maintain the truth 

that he was not under the influence of any substances whatsoever. 

Nevertheless, Defendant Wierszewski began a drug influence 

evaluation.

23. At 02:49, Officer Wierszewski took Mr. Thibault’s pulse and records 

that it is at 86 beats per minute, well within the normal range of 60-100 

bpm. His pulse is taken twice more, both times falling again within the 

normal range. 

24. At 03:04, Mr. Thibault’s blood pressure is taken, and is recorded to be 

138/92.

25. At 03:26, Officer Wierszewski finally reads Mr. Thibault his Miranda 

rights and begins to question him further: 

Wierszewski: “What kind of drugs did you use today?”

Thibault: “None.”

Wierszewski: “What is the white substance in your nose?”

Thibault: “There isn’t any.”

Wierszewski: “...in your left nostril there was a white substance. 

What is the white substance?”

Thibault: “I have no idea. There’s nothing. No drugs.” 

Wierszewski: “Have you taken anything at all today that would 

alter your body in the way that it’s reacting?”

Thibault: “No, nothing. No drugs or anything like that.” 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 04/14/15 Page 7 of 14
8

26. At 03:28, Officer Wierszewski tried desperately to get Mr. Thibault to 

confess to drug use, but Mr. Thibault makes no such confession.

27. At 03:29, Officer Wierszewski informed Mr. Thibault that he is going 

to have to take a blood test to check for drugs, to which Mr. Thibault 

immediately agreed to, without a second of hesitation. Officer 

Wierszewski further stated to Mr. Thibault that if he is on any drugs at 

all, that they will be found on the drug test and Mr. Thibault 

acknowledged same and said “exactly.” 

28. At 03:36, Officer Wierszewski read Mr. Thibault his chemical test 

rights and Mr. Thibault gave immediate consent to taking the test, 

again, without a second of hesitation.

29. After being booked, Mr. Thibault was then transported to Cottage 

Hospital and had his blood drawn for the chemical test. Afterwards, he 

was returned to the jail where he remained until he was released on 

bond at approximately 08:30. 

30. Immediately after being released, Mr. Thibault traveled directly to his 

employer’s drug screening facility, Mercy Memorial – Corporate 

Connection, to take drug and alcohol screening tests to prove to his 

employer that despite the OWI charge he was facing, he was in fact, 

entirely sober and did not have any alcohol or drugs in his system. The 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 04/14/15 Page 8 of 14
9

results of these tests confirmed that Mr. Thibault was being entirely 

honest and truthful with Defendant Wierszewski, as Mr. Thibault 

tested negative for any alcohol or illegal substances. 

31. Mr. Thibault’s employer, Sygma, has a very strict policy regarding 

employees who are charged with driving under the influence, being that 

any employee who is arrested for any type of operating under the 

influence charge must be immediately terminated. 

32. Due to the fact that Mr. Thibault had tested negative for all drugs or 

alcohol, his boss temporarily bent the rule and allowed him to remain 

an active employee, but was suspended without pay from the date of the 

arrest until the date the prosecutor in the criminal case finally agreed to 

dismiss the charge for lack of evidence, a total of fifty-four days. 

33. Due to the suspension from his employer, Mr. Thibault has lost the 

seniority he had acquired during his course of employment at Sygma, 

and is now earning far less than he was prior to the arrest, and is forced 

to work long, sometimes twenty-four hour shifts, as a result of his loss 

of seniority. 

COUNT I

Unlawful Arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 04/14/15 Page 9 of 14
10

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully stated herein. 

35. By arresting and imprisoning Mr. Thibault where there was virtually 

no probable cause to do so, the Defendant, acting individually and 

under the color of law, acted intentionally, maliciously, and with ill will 

in willful and wanton disregard to Mr. Thibault’s rights under the 

Constitution. 

36. Any reasonable person or police officer should have known that such 

actions were in violation of Mr. Thibault’s Constitutional rights, thus 

the Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. 

37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Mr. 

Thibault suffered injury and damage including, but not limited to, the 

following:

a. Lost wages;

b. Pain, suffering, and emotional distress;

c. Injuries to his reputation;

d. Humiliation, mortification and embarrassment;

e. Post-traumatic stress-disorder, anxiety, and depression; and

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 04/14/15 Page 10 of 14
11

f. Other injuries, damages and/or consequences that are found to be 

related to the incident that develop or manifest themselves during 

the course of discovery and trial.

COUNT II

Malicious Prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully stated herein. 

39. Defendant Wierszewski initiated the criminal proceeding against 

Plaintiff without probable cause, privilege or any other justification. 

40. The criminal proceeding ended in Plaintiff’s favor. 

41. Defendant Wierszewski acted maliciously and as a consequence of the 

proceeding, Plaintiff suffered a significant deprivation of liberty 

afforded to him by the Constitution of the United States. 

42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Mr. 

Thibault suffered injury and damage including, but not limited to, the 

following:

g. Lost wages;

h. Pain, suffering, and emotional distress;

i. Injuries to his reputation;

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 04/14/15 Page 11 of 14
12

j. Humiliation, mortification and embarrassment;

k. Post-traumatic stress-disorder, anxiety, and depression; and

l. Other injuries, damages and/or consequences that are found to be 

related to the incident that develop or manifest themselves during 

the course of discovery and trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ALAN THIBAULT respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court grant the following relief against the Defendant:

A. Compensatory damages in the amount which is fair, just and reasonable;

B. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court or at trial 

which is fair, just, and reasonable based on the intentional, malicious, and 

willful conduct of the Defendant;

C. Equitable relief, including that this Court may enjoin and order that 

Defendant be made to adopt appropriate policies to prevent future 

instances of the type of unlawful practices described herein;

D. Attorney fees, costs of this action, and costs of other actions that may be 

associated with the events and actions described in this Complaint; and

E. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem equitable, 

necessary, appropriate, and just. 

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 04/14/15 Page 12 of 14
13

Respectfully submitted,

1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC

/s/ Ari Kresch

Ari Kresch (P29593)

Solomon M. Radner (P73653)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 400

Southfield, MI 48033

(248) 291-9719

sradner@1800lawfirm.com

Dated: April 14, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 04/14/15 Page 13 of 14
14

JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff ALAN THIBAULT, by and though his 

attorney SOLOMON M. RADNER and 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC, and 

hereby requests a trial by jury on all matters before the Court to the extent 

allowed by law.

Respectfully submitted,

1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC

/s/ Ari Kresch

Ari Kresch (P29593)

Solomon M. Radner (P73653)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 400

Southfield, MI 48033

(248) 291-9719

sradner@1800lawfirm.com

Dated: April 14, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-11358-MFL-SDD ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 04/14/15 Page 14 of 14