RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 20a0257p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY TLAPANCO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JONATHAN ELGES, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 19-1392

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

No. 2:16-cv-13465—Arthur J Tarnow, District Judge.

Argued: January 30, 2020

Decided and Filed: August 12, 2020

Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Solomon M. Radner, EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant. 

Rick J. Patterson, POTTER, DEAGOSTINO, O’DEA & PATTERSON, Auburn Hills, Michigan, 

for Appellees Elges, McCabe, and Oakland County, Michigan. ON BRIEF: Solomon M. 

Radner, EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellant. Rick J. Patterson, Steven 

M. Potter, Robert C. Clark, POTTER, DEAGOSTINO, O’DEA & PATTERSON, Auburn Hills, 

Michigan, for Appellees Elges, McCabe, and Oakland County, Michigan.

GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SILER and THAPAR, JJ., 

joined. THAPAR, J. (pp. 24–26), delivered a separate concurring opinion.

>
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

JULIA S. GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Fourteen-year-old A.F. reported to police that she 

was being blackmailed by a user on the messaging application Kik. She explained that the 

perpetrator had obtained nude photographs from her phone and was threatening to release the 

images if she did not send additional nude photographs. Oakland County, Michigan, deputies 

investigated her claims but disregarded the fact that the blackmailer used the Kik username 

“anonymousfl” rather than “anonymous”—a separate Kik username associated with Johnny 

Tlapanco, a New York resident. As a result, New York Police Department (“NYPD”) officers 

working with Oakland County Deputy Jonathan Elges, searched Tlapanco’s apartment, seized 

his electronic devices, arrested him, and detained him in New York for two weeks before 

extraditing him to Michigan and detained him at the Oakland County jail for an additional three 

weeks before the charges were dismissed. 

Tlapanco sued the deputies and Oakland County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that: 

(1) Elges unlawfully searched his apartment, caused his false arrest, and prosecuted him for 

offenses related to child pornography; (2) Deputy Michael McCabe unlawfully seized, searched, 

and copied his electronic devices prior to returning them to him; and (3) Oakland County is 

liable for failure to train or because of McCabe’s decisions as a purported county policymaker.1 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all appellees. Tlapanco challenges the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment to Elges, McCabe, and Oakland County. We affirm 

the grant of summary judgment to McCabe and Oakland County, but reverse the district court’s 

grant of qualified immunity to Elges on Tlapanco’s Fourth Amendment unlawful search and 

seizure, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution claims. 

1Tlapanco also brought claims against the NYPD and NYPD officer Gregory Thornton. The district court 

granted these defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Tlapanco did not appeal the district court’s decision to 

grant the New York defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 3

I.

On March 6, 2014, an Oxford High School (“OHS”) resource officer contacted Elges of 

the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office (“OCSO”) to report a student facing threats of blackmail. 

Elges interviewed the student who reported the threats, A.F., as well as other students at OHS. 

A.F. reported to the resource officer that an individual, “anonymous,” was threatening to release 

nude images of her hacked from her phone if she did not send additional images. The 

anonymous user transmitted the threats through a messaging application called Kik that A.F. and 

others used. A.F. received the threatening messages between March 4 and March 6.

After the interview with Elges, A.F. turned over her phone and iPod to Elges for further 

investigation. Based on his conversation with A.F., Elges immediately sent a request to Kik 

seeking information on the individual using the username “anonymous” on the Kik application. 

The distinction between a display name and a username is critical because a Kik user only has 

one unique username, but a user can change his display name at any time and the display name is 

not unique to that user. Elges learned about the difference between a display name and username 

on Kik in his conversation with A.F. and the other students at the beginning of his investigation. 

Kik’s response linked the username “anonymous” to an email address as well as to two IP

addresses where the user had logged onto the Kik application. The response presented data 

associated with the account from February 9, 2014 to March 13, 2014—including the March 4–6 

period during which A.F. received the threatening messages—and contained the date and time of 

the activity and a coded “extra data” column. DE 54-7, Kik Request Resp., PageID 1451–65. 

The response did not list which accounts “anonymous” messaged nor the contents of those 

messages. 

A deputy assisting Elges’s investigation, Deputy Carol Liposky, extracted information 

from A.F.’s phone and iPod, including information regarding her Kik messages. Liposky 

exported A.F.’s messages into an Excel spreadsheet that was later given to Elges. The 

spreadsheet includes columns for direction (i.e., sent or received), attachments, time, display 

name, username, and contents of the message. The content in the time, display name, and 

username columns appears cut off and incomplete unless the cells in the spreadsheet are 

expanded. When the cells in the spreadsheet are expanded, the display name of the individual 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 4

threatening A.F. is “anonymous,” but the username is “anonymousfl.” DE 54-8, A.F. Kik 

Messages Excel Spreadsheet, PageID 1472. Elges testified that he “look[ed] at the report” but 

“did not expand the cell” for username. DE 44-2, Elges Dep., PageID 641, 631–32. He 

therefore claimed he “did not see the last two letters of the cell,” and believed that both the 

username and the display name of the suspect were “anonymous.” Id. at 642. 

Based on the email address received from Kik, Elges sent a request to Google seeking 

information about the email’s owner. Google’s response listed Tlapanco as the owner of the 

email, included a backup email address, and that the email account had been accessed at the 

same two IP addresses that Kik indicated had accessed the Kik application. Additionally, Elges 

tracked the IP addresses and discovered one address was assigned to the network of 

Kingsborough Community College and the other was registered to private user Pastora Tlapa, 

Tlapanco’s mother, in Brooklyn, New York. 

Based on the collected information, Elges sought a search warrant for the two New York 

City locations associated with the IP addresses. His sworn affidavit for the warrants provided 

that Elges was the deputy in charge of the investigation, relayed his conversation with A.F. and 

the other students, summarized the Kik messages at issue, discussed the Kik request and 

response regarding the IP addresses, and summarized his process for confirming the IP addresses 

through further requests to the online providers and Google. 

Based solely on Elges’s affidavit and no additional investigation, NYPD officer Gregory 

Thornton swore to the warrant request and received search warrants for Kingsborough 

Community College and Tlapanco’s apartment. Thornton, accompanied by Elges and others, 

executed a search of the Brooklyn apartment on May 21, 2014. The officers seized a variety of 

electronic devices, including several iPods, a desktop computer, laptops, and several thumb drive 

storage devices. 

Additionally, the officers interviewed Tlapanco in the apartment after the search. During 

the interview, Tlapanco stated that he created a Kik account with the username “anonymous” in 

January 2013 but had only actively used the account since March 2014. When asked whether he 

knew why the police were at the apartment, he replied that he did not know, but when prompted 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 5

about requesting nude pictures, Tlapanco stated that he only had requested pictures from two 

individuals using Kik but had received or downloaded other pictures from Kik and other 

websites. He identified the two individuals he requested pictures from as “Sophiuchiha” and 

“Yoursluttysecret428,” alternatively identified as “Brianna” and “Quincy,” and stated that they 

were 19 and 22. DE 54-4, OCSO Report, PageID 1428–30; DE 54-9, Tlapanco Police 

Statement, PageID 1474. He denied sending the messages A.F. received that the officers showed 

him, denied ever receiving “child porn,” and denied having any images of A.F. DE 54-4, OCSO 

Report, PageID 1430–31; DE 54-9, Tlapanco Police Statement, PageID 1474–77. He further 

requested the officers use his username and password and investigate the messages sent from his 

account to confirm that he did not send the messages to A.F. 

Tlapanco’s written statement after the interview reiterated his statements from the 

interview, but also included additional statements responding to the allegations:

I don’t remember doing such a thing. It may have happened, but as the officers 

said, it may have been a one-time thing, just feeling crazy that day. I don’t know 

for sure, and without the [Kik message] logs, I cannot confirm that it happen[ed]. 

I am not denying it either. I am not a bad person, and I want to help the officers 

. . . . I’ve never received nude pictures from underage girls from Kik or anything 

else.

DE 54-9, Tlapanco Police Statement, PageID 1475. 

After the NYPD seized Tlapanco’s electronics, the devices were turned over to the OCSO 

for forensic analysis. Over 18,000 images were recovered from the iPod but none of the images 

were of A.F. According to the OCSO police logs, the forensic analysis of the iPod found images 

in poses and outfits “similar” to the ones requested by A.F.’s blackmailer. DE 54-4, OCSO 

Report, PageID 1431. The forensic report also included Kik messages, but “the earliest date of 

the messages stored on the Ipod [sic] were from March 17, 2014.” Id. at 1432. Notably, this is 

after the date of the messages sent to A.F. and consistent with Tlapanco’s statement that he did 

not begin actively messaging on Kik until March 2014. 

Based on the accumulated information and at Elges’s request, the Oakland County 

Prosecutor’s Office sought to charge Tlapanco with eight counts relating to child sexually 

abusive acts, using a computer to commit a crime, and accosting a minor for immoral purposes. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 6

Oakland County issued an arrest warrant, and New York police arrested Tlapanco in July 2014, 

after which he spent two weeks in jail in New York. Tlapanco was then extradited to Michigan 

and held at the Oakland County jail for three weeks. 

Tlapanco was arraigned in Michigan but, prior to the pre-examination hearing, the 

charges were dismissed without prejudice after Elges and the prosecutor realized they had 

arrested Tlapanco, who used the username “anonymous,” and not the blackmailer, who used the 

username “anonymousfl.” The prosecutor stated that he would “follow up with a formal nolle 

pros order once some further investigation [wa]s completed.” DE 44-8, Prelim. Examination Tr., 

PageID 725. Additionally, Tlapanco’s attorney requested and the court approved that Tlapanco’s 

property be returned to him and his fingerprint card be destroyed. 

Prior to returning Tlapanco’s electronics, McCabe, the undersheriff and chief of staff for 

the OCSO, directed the data from the electronic devices to be copied so that the OCSO could 

retain a forensic mirror of the data after returning the actual devices to Tlapanco. McCabe 

testified that the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office directed him to have the devices’ data 

copied so that it could be used to further investigate Tlapanco. McCabe also testified that he did 

not know whether the OCSO had previously made a copy of data from other defendants’ devices 

prior to returning them. 

In March 2015, Tlapanco filed his first complaint against Elges, Liposky, the Oakland 

County Sheriff, and Oakland County. In September 2018, Tlapanco filed his fourth amended 

complaint, which included additional claims against McCabe, Thornton, and the NYPD. Under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tlapanco alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment for unlawful search of 

his apartment and seizure of his electronic devices without probable cause, unreasonable arrest 

and imprisonment without probable cause, unlawful search and seizure by copying the data on 

his devices after dismissal of the case, malicious prosecution, and county liability based on a 

failure to train theory and McCabe’s decision to copy his data as a final policymaker for Oakland 

County. 

In October 2018, Tlapanco; the NYPD and Thornton; and Oakland County, Elges and 

McCabe all filed motions for summary judgment. The district court heard argument on the 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 7

motions in March 2019. The district court granted Elges’s motion because the court found that 

Tlapanco failed to provide evidence of Elges’s recklessness or malice instead of mere negligence 

and that, therefore, the search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution were supported by probable cause. 

As to McCabe, the court found that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no 

case in the Sixth Circuit addressing retention of forensic mirrors. The court granted the NYPD 

and Thornton’s motion because it concluded Tlapanco did not present any facts indicating 

Thornton should have known the warrant upon which he relied was invalid. The district court 

did not address the Oakland County liability claim, presumably because it did not find an 

underlying constitutional violation by Elges or McCabe. The district court later issued a written 

order summarily confirming its oral decisions to dismiss all the claims. Tlapanco timely 

appealed the district court’s decision granting the Oakland County defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. 

II.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Jackson v. City of 

Cleveland, 925 F.3d 793, 806 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Adair v. Charter Cty. of Wayne, 452 F.3d 

482, 486 (6th Cir. 2006)). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue 

of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In reviewing a motion for 

summary judgment, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions 

“from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. 

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). After a defending officer initially raises qualified 

immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the officer is not entitled to qualified 

immunity. Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 472 (6th Cir. 2013). Qualified immunity involves 

a two-step inquiry. First, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court 

must determine whether the officer committed a constitutional violation. Burchett v. Kiefer, 

310 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002). Second, if there is a constitutional violation, the court must 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 8

determine whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Id. 

Courts exercise discretion in deciding in which order to address the questions. Pearson v. 

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). A right is clearly established when the “contours of the 

right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing 

violates that right.” Morrison v. Bd. of Trs. of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009) 

(alteration in original) (internal citation omitted). In the qualified immunity context, if the facts 

alleged and evidence produced, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would permit 

a reasonable juror to find that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right, 

dismissal by summary judgment is inappropriate. See id. 

III.

A. Claims Against Elges

We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Elges based on 

qualified immunity. Based on the facts alleged and the evidence produced, viewed in the light 

most favorable to Tlapanco, a reasonable juror could find that Elges violated Tlapanco’s Fourth 

Amendment rights to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, arrest without probable 

cause, and malicious prosecution. These violations were of clearly established law. Elges, 

therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on these federal claims. We affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment to Elges on Tlapanco’s unlawful search and seizure claim 

regarding mirroring his electronic devices prior to returning the physical devices because 

Tlapanco provided no evidence that Elges was involved in this process. 

1.

Tlapanco argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Elges on 

his unlawful search and seizure claim. Elges is entitled to qualified immunity unless Tlapanco 

has shown that a reasonable jury could find that Elges violated his clearly established Fourth 

Amendment right to be free from searches and seizures without probable cause. We hold that a 

reasonable jury could find that Elges’s warrant affidavit contained a false statement or omission 

that was made with reckless disregard for the truth, and that his statements caused a warrant to be 

issued without probable cause. The right to be free from searches and seizures predicated on an 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 9

officer’s reckless submission of false statements in a warrant affidavit is clearly established. We 

therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified 

immunity on the illegal search and seizure claim. 

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant may be issued only “upon probable 

cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 

the . . . things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “Probable cause exists ‘if the facts and 

circumstances are such that a reasonably prudent person would be warranted in believing that an 

offense had been committed and that evidence thereof would be found on the premises to be 

searched.’” Peffer v. Stephens, 880 F.3d 256, 263 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Greene v. Reeves, 80 

F.3d 1101, 1106 (6th Cir. 1996)). The officer must examine “the totality of the circumstances, 

recognizing both the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.” Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 

303, 318 (6th Cir. 2000). “In the context of child pornography, an affidavit that connects a 

defendant, an offending username, and the defendant’s residence is enough to establish probable 

cause for a search.” United States v. Carter, 792 F. App’x 366, 368 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing 

United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir. 2014)); see also United States v. Lapsins, 570 

F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2009). 

In the Fourth Amendment search and seizure context, “[p]olice officers are entitled to 

rely on a judicially secured warrant for immunity from a § 1983 action for illegal search and 

seizure unless the warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause, that official belief in the 

existence of probable cause is unreasonable.” Yancey v. Carroll County, 876 F.2d 1238, 1243 

(6th Cir. 1989). However, “an officer cannot rely on a judicial determination of probable cause 

if that officer knowingly makes false statements and omissions to the judge such that but for 

these falsities the judge would not have issued the warrant.” Id. 

A plaintiff, thus, may challenge an officer’s qualified immunity defense in a civil rights 

case by showing that (1) the officer’s warrant affidavit contained a false statement or omission 

that was made either deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the false 

statement or omission was material to the finding of probable cause. See Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 

F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2003); Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 305 (6th Cir. 2010). Once a 

plaintiff makes the first showing, the Fourth Amendment requires the court to “set aside the 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 10

[false] statements and include the information omitted in order to determine whether the affidavit 

is still sufficient to establish probable cause.” Sykes, 625 F.3d at 305. “A plaintiff shows 

substantial evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard when, for example, he presents 

proof that at the time the officer swore out the affidavit, she knew of or possessed information 

that contradicted the sworn assertions.” Butler v. City of Detroit, 936 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 

2019). It is generally the jury’s role to determine whether probable cause supported issuance of 

a search warrant unless the only “reasonable determination” that a jury could make is that 

probable cause existed. Yancey, 876 F.2d at 1243. 

In general, “[t]he right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s home is clearly 

established, as is the right to be free from searches predicated on an officer’s intentional or 

reckless submission of false statements in a warrant affidavit.” McCallum v. Geelhood, 742 F. 

App’x 985, 991 n.6 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted). Similarly, it is clearly 

established that in general (and absent a warrant exception, which is not relevant here) “a seizure 

of personal property [is] per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment 

unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause.” United 

States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983); see also Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State 

Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 543 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[S]eizures of personal property require 

probable cause.”). Yet because “immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who 

knowingly violate the law,” this court must not “define clearly established law at a high level of 

generality.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (internal citations omitted); see also 

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 590 (2018); Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 309 

(2015) (per curiam). Rather, to overcome qualified immunity, the evidence must support the 

conclusion “that every reasonable officer in [the officer’s] shoes would have recognized” that the 

search and seizure were unreasonable “in the precise situation [the officer] was facing.” Ashford 

v. Raby, 951 F.3d 798, 801 (6th Cir. 2020); see also Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1866–67 

(2017). 

For several of Tlapanco’s claims, however, the “breathing room” granted to officers by 

qualified immunity is not dispositive given the facts of this case. Ziglar, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 

(internal citation omitted). Specifically, with regard to all of Tlapanco’s Fourth Amendment 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 11

claims against Elges except the mirroring claim, the primary issue to resolve is whether a 

reasonable jury could find that, when he applied for the search and arrest warrants, Elges 

intentionally or recklessly disregarded material facts negating probable cause. Further, while it 

will sometimes be possible for officers to make “reasonable but mistaken judgments” about the 

materiality of the information omitted, that is not true here. Ziglar, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 (internal 

citation omitted). In this case, as described below, the information Elges left out of the warrant 

applications obviously negated probable cause because it demonstrated that Tlapanco was not the 

Kik user harassing A.F. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, Elges is not entitled to 

qualified immunity as long as a reasonable jury could find that his omission of this information 

was intentional or reckless. With this in mind, we proceed to examine Tlapanco’s Fourth 

Amendment claims against Elges.

Elges searched Tlapanco’s apartment and seized his electronic devices pursuant to a 

judicially issued warrant. At summary judgment, Tlapanco must make a “substantial showing” 

of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Elges’s affidavit contained “a deliberate 

falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth.” Vakilian, 335 F.3d at 517. Tlapanco 

seeks to rebut the presumption of probable cause created by the warrant by presenting evidence 

of information Elges possessed “that contradicted the sworn assertions” in his affidavit. Butler, 

936 F.3d at 419. Specifically, Tlapanco provides evidence that (1) Elges knew the difference 

between a display name and username yet failed to confirm the username of the user threatening 

A.F.; (2) the Kik activity log showed that the username “anonymous” did not send the messages 

to A.F.; and (3) Elges possessed A.F.’s messages and a spreadsheet compiling the messages 

showing that the messages were sent from username “anonymousfl.” Viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to Tlapanco, while there is no indication that Elges acted intentionally or 

deliberately, a reasonable jury could find that Elges recklessly disregarded information in his 

possession negating probable cause that the username “anonymous,” and by extension Tlapanco, 

was responsible for hacking A.F. or sending the messages. Therefore, there is a genuine issue of 

material fact whether the statements of material fact or omissions in Elges’s affidavit were made 

recklessly.
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 12

First, Tlapanco points to Elges’s statements that Elges knew the difference between a 

username and display name on Kik yet failed to verify the username of the individual sending the 

messages to A.F. With this knowledge, Tlapanco argues, it was reckless not to verify the 

username of the individual threatening A.F. Elges sought to corroborate A.F.’s allegations by 

speaking to other students as well as viewing A.F.’s Kik messages and photographs on her phone 

and iPod. Yet, despite having access to A.F.’s devices and other means of verification, Elges did 

not confirm the perpetrator’s username. 

Elges responds that, in assuming that “anonymous” was the username and not merely the 

display name, he was simply relying on the information he had received from A.F. and her 

friends. Yet the only evidence that the children (or anyone else) ever told Elges that 

“anonymous” was the username is Elges’s own deposition testimony, which, in this posture, we 

cannot assume that a jury would credit. Indeed, a reasonable jury could find grounds in the 

record to question Elges’s assertion. A.F. testified that what she saw when communicating with 

the individual on Kik was the user’s display name, not the username, and that she did not know 

the username of the person harassing her. As a Kik user, A.F. was familiar with the difference 

between the two names and, in fact, testified that she explained the difference to the police. 

A reasonable jury could credit A.F.’s testimony and infer from it that she would not have told the 

police that anonymous was her harasser’s username. A reasonable jury could find further 

support for this inference in the original written statements that A.F. and a friend of hers each 

provided to the police, as well as Elges’s own initial investigation reports. Although these 

documents identify the Kik user as “anonymous,” none of them indicates that A.F. or anyone 

else ever told Elges that anonymous was the suspect account’s username.

Second, Elges requested and received information from Kik about the user and the 

account activity for the username “anonymous.” Elges received Kik’s response on March 14, 

2014, including IP addresses, related devices, user location, and an email address associated with 

the account. Kik’s response also included an activity log with the date and time, device used to 

access Kik, and “extra data.” DE 54-7, Kik Request Resp., PageID 1451–65. Tlapanco argues 

that this data “confirmed Tlapanco’s innocence [because] none of the messages sent to the victim 

or her friends could be traced to Tlapanco’s Kik account.” CA6 R. 23, Appellant Br., at 35. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 13

Although the inconsistencies are not self-evident upon cursory inspection, a reasonable jury 

could find that an officer comparing the time and date of A.F.’s messages and those from 

anonymous would realize that anonymous did not send the messages. Elges failed to include or 

consider this exculpatory evidence in his affidavit. This omission is material as it is “the kind of 

thing the judge would wish to know” to determine if the alleged illegal conduct is connected to 

the place sought to be searched. Wesley, 779 F.3d at 433 (quoting Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 

F.3d 557, 570 n.3 (6th Cir. 2007) (Holschuh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). 

Finally, as further evidence that Elges recklessly disregarded information suggesting that 

anonymousfl was the username threatening A.F., not anonymous, Tlapanco directs our attention 

to the Excel spreadsheet of A.F.’s Kik messages created by Liposky and given to Elges. 

Tlapanco submitted excerpted screenshots of the spreadsheet, showing that the spreadsheet 

includes columns for the Kik name (i.e., display name), the Kik username, and the contents of 

A.F.’s Kik messages. When the cells are collapsed, the content of the display name and 

username columns appears largely cut off. Elges testified that he “looked at the spreadsheet 

[but] just did not expand the [username] cell.” DE 42-2, Elges Dep., PageID 473. Elges saw the 

collapsed username column stating “anonymous,” but because he did not expand the cell, he “did 

not see the last two letters of the cell.” Id. at 474. A reasonable jury could find that Elges’s 

decision to not expand the cell and confirm the username of the account sending the messages—

where that cell and many others appeared incomplete when not expanded—was reckless and 

resulted in a material omission of the correct username from the affidavit. 

In sum, Tlapanco presented “substantial evidence of . . . reckless disregard” rebutting the 

presumption of probable cause by “present[ing] proof that at the time [Elges] swore out the 

[search warrant] affidavit, [Elges] . . . possessed information that contradicted the sworn 

assertions.” Butler, 936 F.3d at 419. Specifically, while a reasonable jury could find that Elges 

was merely negligent, when we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Tlapanco as we 

must, a reasonable jury could alternatively find that Elges acted recklessly. Elges did not 

independently verify the username despite access to devices with A.F.’s Kik messages, he 

possessed data showing that the username anonymous did not send the messages to A.F., and he 

viewed a spreadsheet that included a specific column showing the username sending the 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 14

messages was “anonymousfl.” And the warrant was based entirely on the purported connection 

between the threatening messages and the username “anonymous,” so it is obvious that this 

information was material. Elges is not entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful search and 

seizure claim. 

2.

Tlapanco’s next § 1983 claim is that Elges arrested him without probable cause. Whether 

or not the district court properly granted summary judgment to Elges on the basis of qualified 

immunity turns on whether a reasonable jury could find that Elges violated Tlapanco’s clearly 

established Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest without probable cause. We conclude 

that a reasonable jury could find that Elges lacked probable cause to arrest Tlapanco and that the 

right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established.2 We therefore 

reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity with 

respect to the wrongful arrest claim.

To prevail on a false arrest claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff [must] prove that the arresting 

officer lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.” Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, 412 F.3d 

669, 677 (6th Cir. 2005). An arrest is supported by the requisite probable cause when, at the 

time of that arrest, “the facts and circumstances within [the officer’s] knowledge and of which 

[she] had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent man in 

believing that the [plaintiff] had committed or was committing an offense.” Wesley, 779 F.3d at 

429 (alterations in original) (quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964)). A showing of 

“probable cause provides a complete defense to a claim of false arrest.” Halasah v. City of 

Kirtland, 574 F. App’x 624, 629 (6th Cir. 2014). 

2Because Tlapanco resided in New York, the arrest warrant was sent to Thornton in New York to 

effectuate Tlapanco’s arrest. Elges did not personally arrest Tlapanco. Elges was responsible for swearing out the 

affidavit upon which the arrest warrant relied, and no other independent investigation was carried out by the officers 

in New York before arresting Tlapanco. Here, Elges briefly mentioned he did not physically participate in the arrest 

but failed to develop any argument that these claims could not proceed on this basis, thereby forfeiting this issue. 

See United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 309 (6th Cir. 2016). In an unpublished decision, this court has been 

willing to assume that a plaintiff can bring a false arrest and malicious prosecution claim against an officer in spite 

of the fact that he was not the arresting officer and there was an arrest warrant. See Garcia v. Thorne, 520 F. App’x 

304, 307 (6th Cir. 2013). Because Elges has not argued to the contrary, we assume the same for this case, given 

Elges’s primary role in the investigation, search and seizures of the electronic devices, and swearing out the affidavit 

in support of the arrest warrant. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 15

Because Tlapanco’s arrest warrant was issued by a judge, he must make a substantial 

showing that Elges’s sworn statements supporting the arrest warrant included “material false 

statements [made] either knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth to establish probable 

cause for an arrest.” Vakilian, 335 F.3d at 517. In addition to the evidence discussed above, 

Tlapanco points to other exculpatory evidence gathered by Elges after the interview with 

Tlapanco and the search and seizure of his devices. In particular, Tlapanco provides evidence 

Elges knew: (1) none of Tlapanco’s devices included images of A.F. or Kik messages with A.F., 

and (2) Tlapanco denied soliciting or receiving images from minors. Because a reasonable jury 

could find that Elges’s sworn statements supporting the arrest warrant were recklessly indifferent 

to the truth that Tlapanco did not hack or communicate with A.F., and Tlapanco’s right to be free 

from arrest without probable cause was clearly established, Elges is not entitled to qualified 

immunity on this claim. 

First, Tlapanco’s seized electronic devices did not contain any images of A.F. or Kik 

messages with A.F. The OCSO completed a forensic search of Tlapanco’s seized electronic 

devices including iPods, laptops, and a cell phone. According to the police log, Tlapanco’s iPod 

contained “numerous” explicit images. DE 44-3, OCSO Case Report, PageID 674. Most 

significantly, however, officers found no images of A.F. on the devices. The forensic report also 

included Kik messages, “but the earliest date of the messages stored on the Ipod [sic] [was] 

March 17, 2014.” Id. at 675. The fact that no images of A.F. were found on Tlapanco’s 

electronic devices provided Elges additional exculpatory evidence that Tlapanco was not 

responsible for hacking A.F. or sending the Kik messages. Depending on their content, the 

images on Tlapanco’s iPod may have given the officers probable cause to investigate and arrest 

Tlapanco for other crimes, but they did not provide the officers inculpatory evidence relating to 

A.F. The arrest warrant charged Tlapanco with computer crimes and child sexually explicit 

activity specifically relating to interactions with A.F. A reasonable jury could find the failure to 

discover any images of A.F. or Kik messages with A.F. in Tlapanco’s possession provided 

additional exculpatory evidence undermining any reasonable belief of probable cause. 

Second, Elges also interviewed Tlapanco at his apartment and Tlapanco provided a 

written statement. Elges argues that Tlapanco’s interview and statements connect Tlapanco to 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 16

A.F. because Tlapanco “admitted he used Kik, admitted his username on Kik was Anonymous, 

admitted he asked girls for nude photographs, and did not deny that he may have requested 

photographs from the victim.” CA6 R. 25, Appellee Br., at 37. The fact that Tlapanco used the 

Kik username anonymous was previously established; this fact does not provide additional 

support for Elges’s probable cause determination. 

Moreover, when viewed in context of the entire interview it is clear that Tlapanco denied 

allegations of receiving or soliciting nude pictures from anyone underage including A.F. The 

officers questioned Tlapanco about A.F., but he did not “remember doing such a thing. It may 

have happened, but as the officers said, it may have been a one-time thing, just feeling crazy that 

day. [He did not] know for sure, and without the [message] logs, [he could not] confirm that it 

happen[ed]. [He did] not deny[] it either.” DE 54-9, Tlapanco Police Statement, PageID 1475. 

Later in the statement, Tlapanco reiterated that he did not want to be “forced to admit to 

something [he’s] never done” and has “never received nude pictures from any one underage. 

[He] ha[s] asked for non-nude clothed pictures, just to put a face on the username. Anyone who 

has asked [him] to stop, [he] ha[s] stopped completely. [He] believe[d] that going through the 

[messages] log w[ould] reveal the most information.” Id. at 1476–77; see also DE 44-3, OCSO 

Case Report, PageID 671, 673. Elges showed Tlapanco Kik messages taken from A.F.’s phone 

and Tlapanco specifically stated that he did not send the messages. Viewed as a whole, 

Tlapanco’s statements deny any alleged solicitation or receipt of explicit pictures from minors 

and direct the officers to review the Kik messaging logs to verify this claim. 

Despite Tlapanco’s substantial showing that Elges possessed information establishing 

that Tlapanco did not hack A.F. nor communicate with her on Kik, Tlapanco was arrested 

pursuant to a warrant and therefore needs to prove: “(1) that the officer applying for the warrant, 

either knowingly and deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements 

or omissions that created a falsehood[,] and (2) that such statements or omissions were material 

to the finding of probable cause.” Halasah, 574 F. App’x at 629.

Tlapanco’s claim is weakened by the lack of documentation regarding what false 

statements or material omissions Elges made to secure the arrest warrant. Elges swore out the 

information pertaining to the arrest warrant rather than submitting an affidavit. Neither side 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 17

presented a transcript or affidavit of the testimony, so there is no record of the statements or 

omissions made to secure the arrest warrant. The arrest warrant itself states that Elges, as the 

complaining witness, filed a sworn complaint providing support for the eight criminal counts 

included. Tlapanco’s evidence, however, suggests that a judge would not have issued the arrest 

warrant if Elges had presented all relevant exculpatory information. A reasonable jury could 

find that Elges did not have probable cause to conclude that Tlapanco was connected to the 

conduct at issue, and that the judge would not have issued the arrest warrant but for recklessly 

false statements or material omissions by Elges. A reasonable jury could find that Tlapanco was 

arrested without probable cause, a violation of a clearly established right. Accordingly, Elges is 

not entitled to qualified immunity. 

3.

Tlapanco argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Elges on 

the malicious prosecution claim.3 Elges is entitled to qualified immunity unless Tlapanco has 

shown that a reasonable jury could find that Elges violated his Fourth Amendment right to be 

free from malicious prosecution and that a reasonable officer would have been aware of the 

violation. Because he has made such a showing, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment to Elges on the basis of qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim. 

The elements for a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment, as set out 

in Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010), are: (1) “that a criminal prosecution was 

initiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant ‘ma[d]e, influence[d], or participate[d] in the 

decision to prosecute’”; (2) “that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal 

prosecution”; (3) “that, ‘as a consequence of a legal proceeding,’ the plaintiff suffered a 

‘deprivation of liberty’ . . . apart from the initial seizure”; and (4) that “the criminal proceeding 

3The concurrence points to the mislabeling of the “malicious prosecution” offense as such. Indeed, this 

court has noted that this label is a “misnomer,” and is better labeled as the right “to be free from continued detention 

without probable cause.” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 747, 750 (6th Cir. 2006). This court has not, 

however, concluded that a false arrest offense and malicious prosecution offense are not separate and distinct claims. 

The gravamen of a so-called malicious prosecution offense, arising from the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition 

against unreasonable searches and seizures, “is continued detention without probable cause.” Id. at 748. This 

offense is separate and distinct from a false arrest offense. See Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 305 (6th Cir. 

2010). 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 18

must have been resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. at 308–09 (alterations in original) (first 

quoting Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227, 237 (6th Cir. 2007), then quoting Johnson v. Knorr, 

477 F.3d 75, 81 (3d Cir. 2007)). There appears to be no dispute that Tlapanco suffered a 

deprivation of liberty—he was incarcerated for five weeks after his initial seizure—or that the 

proceeding was eventually resolved in his favor, leaving us to resolve only the first and second 

elements.

“Under the first element, an investigating officer does not escape liability just because 

someone else (e.g., the prosecutor) made the actual decision to prosecute, so long as the plaintiff 

can show that the officer ‘influenced or participated in the decision to prosecute.’” Sampson v. 

Village of Mackinaw City, 685 F. App’x 407, 417 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Sykes, 625 F.3d at 

311–12)). “Providing reports, affidavits, or other investigative materials containing falsehoods, 

omissions, or misstatements to a prosecutor can constitute participation when (1) those materials 

formed the basis for the charge,” and “(2) the falsehoods, omissions, or misstatements were 

made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Meeks v. City of Detroit, 727 F. 

App’x 171, 178 (6th Cir. 2018). Tlapanco provided evidence that Elges participated in and 

influenced the decision to prosecute. Elges requested the arrest warrant from the Oakland 

County Prosecutor’s Office and swore out the arrest warrant to the judge. Although the Oakland 

County Prosecutor’s Office authorized the arrest warrant and created the charging document, 

Elges supplied the reports and investigative materials forming the basis for the specific charges. 

The evidence shows Elges influenced and participated in the decision to prosecute. 

Under the second element, a reasonable jury could find that there was a lack of probable 

cause to prosecute Tlapanco. As discussed above, Tlapanco presented substantial evidence that 

Elges possessed information showing there was no probable cause to arrest and prosecute him 

yet recklessly omitted this information. 

Accordingly, Tlapanco has provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could find 

that Elges violated Tlapanco’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from 

malicious prosecution by a defendant who has ‘made, influenced, or participated in the decision 

to prosecute the plaintiff’ by . . . ‘knowingly or recklessly’ making false statements that are 

material to the prosecution either in reports or in affidavits filed to secure warrants.” King v. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 19

Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 582–83 (6th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Elges is not entitled to 

qualified immunity on this claim. 

4.

The district court correctly determined that Elges was entitled to summary judgment on 

the search and seizure claims related to the copying of Tlapanco’s devices because Tlapanco 

provided no evidence that Elges was involved in the copying. See Burley, 729 F.3d at 619. We 

therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment on this claim. 

B. Claims Against McCabe

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to McCabe based on qualified 

immunity. First, Tlapanco provided no evidence that McCabe was involved in the search of 

Tlapanco’s apartment or the seizure of his electronic devices, entitling him to summary judgment 

as to those claims. Second, because McCabe returned Tlapanco’s electronic devices the same 

day the Michigan trial court filed its written decision, we find McCabe was also entitled to 

summary judgment as to that claim. We conclude that there was no clearly established Fourth 

Amendment right against investigators retaining a forensic mirror of electronic devices after 

returning the physical devices. As this issue is one of first impression and the factual record is 

not comprehensively developed, we decline to address the merits of the alleged constitutional 

violation.

1.

The district court correctly determined that McCabe was entitled to summary judgment 

on Tlapanco’s unlawful search and seizure claim as Tlapanco provided no evidence that McCabe 

was involved in the investigation, preparation of the affidavit, search of Tlapanco’s apartment, or 

seizure of the electronic devices. See Burley v. Gagacki, 729 F.3d 610, 619 (6th Cir. 2013) (“To

establish liability against an individual defendant acting under color of state law, a plaintiff must 

show that the defendant was ‘personally involved’ in [unlawful conduct].” (quoting Binay v. 

Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir. 2010))). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment on this claim. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 20

2.

Tlapanco claims that McCabe violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from 

unreasonable searches and seizures of his personal property. He first claims that the retention of 

his electronic devices after the Michigan trial court’s oral decision granting the government’s 

motion to dismiss the criminal charges without prejudice was an unlawful seizure. We, however, 

agree with McCabe that Michigan trial court’s order went into effect with its written decision, 

rather than oral pronouncement.4 Because the electronic devices were returned the same day the 

written order was issued, McCabe’s retention of the devices for the two days in between the 

pronouncement of the oral decision and filing of the written decision was not an unreasonable 

seizure. The district court properly granted McCabe qualified immunity on this claim as 

Tlapanco failed to provide evidence of a Fourth Amendment violation. 

Second, Tlapanco claims that making a forensic mirror (i.e., copying) of his electronic 

devices, including his cell phone and laptops, after the trial court’s oral decision to return his 

property was an unlawful search and that then retaining the forensic mirrors after returning the 

physical devices and dismissal of the criminal prosecution is a continuing unlawful seizure. 

We first note that it is not mandatory to address the qualified immunity prongs 

sequentially; rather, discussion of the first prong will in some cases result “in a substantial 

expenditure of scarce judicial resources on difficult questions that have no effect on the outcome 

of the case.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009) (permitting federal courts to 

skip to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis). We decline to address 

the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis and proceed directly to the clearly established 

prong in assessing this claim against McCabe as that prong is dispositive here. 

4The parties dispute when the trial court’s order went into effect. There was a two-day period between the 

Michigan trial court’s oral decision on August 12, 2014, and written order on August 14, 2014, during which 

Tlapanco’s devices were retained. The parties dispute the effect of the oral decision. Although “courts generally 

speak through their judgments and decrees,” Arbor Farms, LLC v. Geostar Corp., 305 Mich. App. 374, 387 (Mich. 

Ct. App. 2014), oral rulings in Michigan courts are binding when they contain the “indicia of formality and finality 

comparable to that of a written order.” Id. at 388. Here, the oral ruling contained no such indicia of formality as the 

defendants’ counsel was directed to “prepare the order and provide it to the Court.” DE 44-8, Prelim. Examination 

Tr., PageID 725. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 21

This circuit has not previously addressed the Fourth Amendment implications of 

mirroring a suspect’s electronic files prior to returning the physical device and maintaining the 

forensic mirror after dropping a criminal prosecution. Indeed, no circuit has assessed the 

constitutionality of this practice, let alone deemed it unlawful. The Second Circuit considered 

the issue in the context of a motion to suppress in United States v. Ganias (Ganias I), 755 F.3d 

125 (2d Cir. 2014), but ultimately, after en banc rehearing, the full court decided not to reach the 

issue of whether the retention of copied hard drive data was a Fourth Amendment violation 

warranting suppression of the documents because it found the agents acted in good faith reliance 

on the basis of a valid warrant. United States v. Ganias (Ganias II), 824 F.3d 199, 221–25 (2d 

Cir. 2016). Similarly, in the context of a motion to suppress, the First Circuit considered whether 

the retention of all copied emails collected pursuant to a warrant during the pendency of a 

defendant’s criminal appeals warranted suppression and held that it was reasonable to interpret 

the warrant to permit retention of the data until the appeals were completed. United States v. 

Aboshady, 951 F.3d 1, 6–8 (1st Cir. 2020). 

The absence of any existing precedent on this issue is dispositive of Tlapanco’s unlawful 

search and seizure claims against McCabe. In the absence of any guiding precedent, a 

reasonable officer in McCabe’s position would not have known that he was committing a 

constitutional violation when he mirrored electronic devices seized pursuant to a search warrant 

and then retained the forensic mirrors after the charges had been dismissed and the devices 

returned to their owner. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to 

McCabe on these claims. 

C. Claims Against Oakland County

On appeal, Tlapanco only challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to 

Oakland County with respect to the search and seizure claim for the mirroring of his electronic 

devices after the charges were dismissed. The district court, having concluded that McCabe was 

entitled to qualified immunity, did not address this issue. Tlapanco argued two theories of 

municipal liability: that Oakland County failed to train its officer and that McCabe’s decision, as 

a final policy maker, to mirror the devices created the official policy of Oakland County. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 22

“[T]he inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for § 1983 liability only 

where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom 

the police come into contact.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). This court 

has consistently held that a municipality cannot be held liable on a failure to train theory where a 

right was not clearly established. See Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988, 

994–95 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[A] municipality cannot deliberately shirk a constitutional duty unless 

that duty is clear.”); Hagans v. Franklin County, 695 F.3d 505, 511 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[A] 

municipal policymaker cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a 

constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” (quoting Szabla v. City 

of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 393 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). Because there was no clearly 

established right not to have an electronic device seized pursuant to a search warrant, mirrored, 

and the forensic mirror retained, Oakland County was not deliberately indifferent to the potential 

constitutional violation. 

“In City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, [485 U.S. 112 (1988)], the Supreme Court held that 

when a plaintiff alleges that an unconstitutional municipal policy is evinced by a single decision 

by a municipal official, ‘only those municipal officials who have “final policymaking authority” 

may by their actions subject the government to § 1983 liability’ and that state law determines 

whether a municipal official has ‘final policymaking authority.’” Jones v. Clark County, 

959 F.3d 748, 762 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 123). Whether an individual 

is a final policymaker for purposes of § 1983 liability is a question of state or local law, and a 

showing of policymaking authority typically requires specific evidence that the official’s 

decisions were not subject to review or that the official could set policy related to broad goals. 

Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803, 813 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Baar v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. 

of Educ., 476 F. App’x 621, 638 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he actions of a single official can only 

create liability for the local government where that official has final policymaking authority, and 

whether an official has such final authority is a question of state law.”). Tlapanco has not 

demonstrated that state or local law vested McCabe with the authority to make county policy nor 

that McCabe’s “decisions are final and unreviewable and are not constrained by the official 

policies of superior officials.” Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 493 (6th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353, 362 (6th Cir. 2001)). Tlapanco’s 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 23

exclusive reliance on McCabe’s deposition testimony regarding his second-in-command duties 

within OCSO is insufficient to satisfy his burden to provide evidence that McCabe had final 

policymaking authority to establish particular search and seizure practices for Oakland County. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Oakland County on Tlapanco’s 

municipal liability claim. 

IV.

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the grant of qualified immunity to Elges on 

Tlapanco’s Fourth Amendment claims based on the initial searches and seizures of his 

belongings, arrest without probable cause, and malicious prosecution. We affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment to Elges on Tlapanco’s unlawful search and seizure claim 

regarding mirroring his electronic devices. We affirm the grant of qualified immunity to 

McCabe on all of Tlapanco’s claims. Finally, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to 

Oakland County.
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 24

_________________

CONCURRENCE

_________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the thoughtful majority opinion, which 

correctly resolves the disputed issues before us. I write separately to offer a reminder that 

“malicious prosecution” is a troublesome label for claims based on unreasonable pretrial 

detention. As our court explained years ago, this cause of action is better characterized “simply 

as the right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from continued detention without probable 

cause.” Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 750 (6th Cir. 2006). In other words, it’s “a 

plain-vanilla Fourth Amendment claim.” Manuel v. City of Joliet, 903 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 

2018) (Easterbrook, J.), on remand from 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017). 

While old habits can be hard to break, I encourage parties and judges in this circuit to 

follow the Supreme Court’s lead in Manuel and “eschew[] the ‘malicious prosecution’ label.” 

Pagán-González v. Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 608 (1st Cir. 2019) (Barron, J., concurring) 

(discussing Manuel, 137 S. Ct. 911); see also Jones v. Clark Cty., 959 F.3d 748, 777 (6th Cir. 

2020) (Murphy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that Manuel “conspicuously 

avoided that label”). The label serves little purpose and leads only to confusion.

If you doubt it, just look at this case. The police arrested Tlapanco pursuant to a warrant 

after a magistrate judge made a (possibly invalid) probable-cause determination. He was then 

held on that warrant throughout his detention. Thus, by all appearances, he suffered no more 

than one unreasonable seizure of his person. Logically, that one seizure should give rise to one 

Fourth Amendment claim. Yet Tlapanco brings two—a false-arrest-and-imprisonment claim 

and a “malicious prosecution” claim, both based on the same seizure and ensuing detention. The 

majority opinion properly accepts this presentation given that all parties litigated on this basis. 

Still, it’s worth pointing out that the parties’ presentation seems duplicative. 

What explains this redundancy? If you study Tlapanco’s pleadings, it’s unclear whether 

he originally intended to bring the “malicious prosecution” count as a Fourth Amendment claim. 

Rather, he seems to have pled the false-arrest-and-imprisonment count to cover the Fourth 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 25

Amendment injury of unreasonable seizure and detention and then to have proffered a 

“malicious prosecution” claim based on some independent constitutional right to be free from 

wrongful criminal charges. 

But this court has not recognized a freestanding malicious-prosecution claim under dueprocess principles. Or at any rate, not since before Albright v. Oliver, which rejected a 

substantive-due-process right to be free from unreasonable prosecution. 510 U.S. 266, 268 

(1994); see also Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (discussing preAlbright circuit precedent). 

What this court has recognized—and repeatedly called “malicious prosecution,” though 

often with reluctance—is a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizures related to 

prosecutions. See, e.g., Howse v. Hodous, 953 F.3d 402, 409 (6th Cir. 2020); Sykes v. Anderson, 

625 F.3d 294, 310 (6th Cir. 2010); Gregory, 444 F.3d at 750; see also Jones, 959 F.3d at 777 

(Murphy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). As we have explained, “malicious 

prosecution” is a “misnomer” for this kind of claim for at least two reasons: (1) it has no 

separate “malice” element; and (2) since it’s rooted in the Fourth Amendment, it targets the 

wrong of unreasonable detention, not the wrong of unjustified prosecution as such. Howse, 

953 F.3d at 408–09. In other words, both the adjective and the noun in “malicious prosecution” 

are misleading. 

Even so, the label has stuck and is now embedded in our caselaw. So you can hardly 

blame the parties for their initial assumption that Tlapanco could bring both a “malicious 

prosecution” claim and a false-arrest-and-imprisonment claim.1 Later, as the case proceeded, the 

parties read the fine print and shifted the “malicious prosecution” count onto a Fourth 

Amendment footing. But no one seemed to notice that this produced two Fourth Amendment 

1While we’re at it, we might want to stop using the “false arrest” and “false imprisonment” labels too. The 

elements of common-law false arrest or false imprisonment are not a perfect match for a Fourth Amendment 

unreasonable-seizure claim (for instance, the required interference with liberty in false imprisonment is a 

“confinement,” not a “seizure”). See Dobbs’ Law of Torts § 41 (2d ed. June 2020 update); Restatement (Second) of 

Torts § 35 (Am. Law Inst. 1965). For maximum clarity, we should simply call every unreasonable-seizure claim 

what it is: an unreasonable-seizure claim. 
No. 19-1392 Tlapanco v. Elges, et al. Page 26

claims for a single Fourth Amendment injury. To avoid this confusion in the future, we should 

stop calling it “malicious prosecution” when a plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim based 

on unreasonable pretrial detention.