The H on or ab le Arthur L
. A larc ón, S en io r Jud g e, Uni te d S tate s C ourto f App ea ls f or th e N inth * Circuit, sittingby

des ignation. NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 06a0692n. 06 Fi l ed: Sept ember 20, 2006 N o. 05- 3636 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
GEO RG E KR AN TZ, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t,
v. CI TY O F TOLEDO POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; LUC AS CO UN TY C HI LDR EN SERV I CES BO AR D; KEELY GR AY ; M AR I O W ALLA CE, OF F I CE R; CI T Y OF T OL E DO, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he N o rth e rn D istric t o f

O h io

/ B efore: G U Y , S U T T O N , an d A L A R C Ó N , C i rcu i t Jud ges. * R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. Pl ai nt i ff G eor ge K r ant z appe al s fr om t he entr yof s um m ar yj udgm enti n favor of def endant s
— t he C i t yof Tol edo, Pol i ce O ffi cer M ar i o W al l ace , t he Lucas C ount yC hi l dr en Ser vi ces B oar d ( L C C S) , and L C C S C as ew or ker K eel y G r ay
— on cl ai m s ar i s i ng out of a t r aff i c st op m ade i n i nves t i gat i ng a di s put e overt he
c u s t o d yo f

h i s t h e n f

i v e - y e a r - o l d s o n . P l a i n t i f f ’ s a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t a s s e r t e d v a r i o u s c l a i ms unders t at e l aw and forvi ol at i on of 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, i ncl udi ng i l l egal s ear ch and s ei zur e,No. 05-3636 2

Fa l s e arr e s tand f

a l s e i mp r i s o nm e ntar e the s ame c aus e o f a c t i o n, w i th f

a l s e arr e s ti nv o l v i ngthe 1 un lawfu l deten tion by

an officer. Ro gers v. Barb era , 1 64 N.E.2d16 2 (O hio 1 96 0). For this reason, we refer to thi s as ac la im fo r fa ls e ar re st . fal s e a rrest and i m pr i s onm ent , as s aul t , defa m at i on, m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, and gende r di s cr i m ination. Pl ai nt i ff a r gues on appea l t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fi ndi ng t hat 1 defe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o i m m uni t yfr om s ui ton t he s t at e l aw cl ai m s pur s uantt o O hi o R ev. C ode § 2744. 02 and § 2744. 03. Pl ai nt i ff a l s o ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fi ndi ng on t he mer i t s t hathe coul d notpr evai l on hi s s t at e l aw cl ai m s forfal s e arrest, as s aul t , or d ef am ati o n , o r h is § 1 9 8 3 claim s fo r i ll eg al sea rch an d seizu re. A fter rev iew o f th e re co rd
a n d t h e a r g u me n t s p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l , we a f f i r m. I. T h e sto p a t issu e a ro se o u t o f a lo n g -ru n n in g d isp u te b e tw e e n G e o rg e K ra n tz a n d h is
ex- gi r l fr i end, P atri cia W y m an, overt he cus t odyof t hei rt hen fi ve- y ear - ol d s on D akot a. K r ant z and W y m an s pl i tup notl ong aft erD akot a w as bor n, a p eti ti o n forcus t odyw as br oughti n J uven il e C o u r t , and the LC C S fi l ed i t s ow n pet i t i on s eeki ng cus t odyon t he gr ounds t hatt he par ent s ’ vol at il e relati ons hi p m ade c ondi t i ons uns afe fort he chi l d. T he
c a s e w o r k e ra s s i g n e d t o D a k o t a ’ s p e t i t i o n w a s d e f e n d a n tK e e l y G r a y. T e m p o ra ry c u sto d y w a s aw a rd e d to L C C S in e a rly1 9 9 8 , w ith th e c h ild re sid in g w ith t he mat ernal gr andmot herand bot h par ent s havi ng s uper vi s ed vi s i t at i on. In M arc h 1999, aft era hea r i ng, W y m an w as aw ar ded l egal cus tod y o f D akot a, and K r ant z w as gr ant ed vi s i t at i on “pert he s t andar d cour ts chedul e” ( exce p t tha tpi ckups and dr op- offs w er e t o beNo. 05-3636 3

m ade t hr ough a t hi r d par t y )
. K r ant z fi l ed t i m el y obj ect i ons t o t hator der , ar gui ng t hathe w as p r e j u d i c e d b y h a v i n g t o p r o c e e d a tt h e h e a r i n g d e s p i t e t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f h i s a t t o r n e y. T hos e obj ect i ons r emai ned pendi ng fort hr ee y ear s unt i l , on A pr i l 30, 2002, t he j uv enil e cou rtj ud ge sust ai ned t he o bject i on s, vacatedthe c us t od yorder, and returned the case t o t he docket for a new hear i ng. B eca us e t hator derdi d notaddr es s t he mat t er s of cus t ody
orvi s i t ati o n pendi ng t he hea r i ng, l egal cus t odyof t he chi l d r evert ed t o L C C S undert he
ear l i ercus t odyor der
. T here is n o d isput e thatG r ayw as unaw ar e of the obj ect i ons ort he deci s i on vaca t i ng t he cus t odyor der
. I tal s o appea r s t hatt he par ent s i nfor m al l ycont i nued the pr i orcus t odyand vi s i t at i on arr angement s unt i l ear l yA ugus t2002. O n A u g u st 6 , 2 0 0 2 , W y m a n f iled a c o m p la in t ag a in st K ra n tz f o r in ter f e re n c e w ith
cus t ody al l egi ng t hat K r ant z had f ai l ed t o r etur n t he chi l d att he end of hi s w eeke nd vi s i t at i on t w o day s ear l i er . K r ant z appe ar ed on the w arr anton A ugus t12, and a he ar i ng w as s chedul ed for l at er t hat m ont h. O n A ugus t 14, w hen t he chi l d had s t i l l notbeen r etur ned, W y m an w ent t o t he pol i ce foras s i s t ance . She t al ked t o D et ect i ve R ober tSchr oederand s how ed hi m t he
cour tor dergr ant i ng hercus t ody
. Schr oeder cal l ed L C C S t o chec k w i t h t he ca s ew or ker
. T he cal l w as r efe r r ed t o K eel yG r ay , w ho t ol d Schr oedert hatW y m an had c us t odyof t he chi l d. O n A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , at a p p ro x im a tely1 :0 0 p .m ., D e te c ti v e S c h ro e d e r w e n t to K r a n t z ’ s r e s i d e n c e w h e r e h e s a w K r a n t z g e ti n t o a v a n w i t h t w o c h i l d r e n a n d d r i v e a w a y. Schr oederfol l ow ed and c onfi r m ed thatt he van w as r egi s t er ed t o K r ant z. K r ant z, w ho w as tak in g th e c h ild re n to a sitter , rea lize d h e w a s b e in g f o llo w e d a n d c irc led b a c k a ro u n d to h is hous e. Schr oedercal l ed foruni for m ed off i cer s t o s t op t he van.No. 05-3636 4

Pol i ce O ffi cer s C ar ol Scher er and L eah L ew i s i nt er cept ed K r ant z i n a mar ked ca rand sig n a led f

o r h im to p u ll o v e r . T h e o f f ice rs c o u ld se e K ra n tz b a n g o n th e ste e rin g w h e e l,
m out h “thatfucki ng bi t ch, ” and ges tur e out the w i ndow att hem. K r ant z dr ove ar ound t he
corner , s t opped agai ns t t he curb i n fr ont of hi s hous e, and j um ped out of t he van. A nei ghbor
w i t nes s ed K r ant z y el l i ng and usi ng pr ofani t y at t he offi cer s , and K r ant z admi t t ed thathe w as “cur s i ng. ” T he offi cer s dr ew t hei rw eapons and or der ed K r ant z t o getback i nt o hi s van thr ee t i m es , butK r ant z i gnor ed t hem and cont i nued t o y el l and cur s e. Pol i ce O ffi cerM ar i o W al l ace ( t he o n ly o ffi cernamed as a def endant ) arr i ved
s epar at el yand di r ect ed K r ant z t o puthi s hands on t h e si de of the van. K r ant z r efus ed and W a llac e u se d so m e f

o rc e to p u sh K ra n tz u p a g a in st th e sid e o f th e v a n . W a llac e p a tted h im dow n, handcuf

fed hi m , and hel d hi m byt he nec k agai ns tt he van a s K r ant z cur s ed and ke pt t r y i ng t o tur n ar ound. K r ant z admi t t ed thathe of fe red som e r es i s t ence and cl ai m ed that W al l ace bo un ced h i m i nto t he v an fo ur t i m es. Schr oeder t r i ed t o t al k w i t h K r ant z, w ho vehement l yand l oudl yi ns i s t ed thatW y m an di d nothave cus t ody of t he chi l d. K r ant z s ai d t her e w er e “c our tpaper s ” i ns i de the van that
w oul d pr ove t hi s , an d told the offi cer s w her e t o fi nd t hem. O ffi cerScher er( w ho i s not named as a def

endant ) ent er ed the van a nd r et ri ev ed the pape r s i n ques t i on. Schr oeder l oo ked att he p apers, bu tfou nd t he q uest i on of cu st o d y w a s n o t cl earl yspel l ed o ut. A s a
r es ul t , Schr oederdi r ect ed another offi cer , D et ect i ve R ober t M axw el l , t o ver i fyt he cus t ody i s s ue w i t h t he ca s ew or keratL C C S. I n t hi s s econd cal l , G r ayagai n confi r m ed thatW y m an had l egal cus t odyof D akot a. T hati nfor m at i on w as r el ay ed t o Sch roe d er, w ho t hen ca l l edNo. 05-3636 5

W y m an t o t he s cene and al l ow ed t he chi l d t o l eave w i t h hi s m ot her
. K r ant z w as notpl ace d under arr es t , t r ans por t ed el s ew her e, or char ged w i t h any offe ns e as a r es ul t of t he s t op. T he handcuf fs w er e r emoved a nd t he offi cer s l eft w hi l e K r ant z y el l ed pr ofani t i es aft er t hem. T he enti re s t op l ast ed ap proxim at el y25 m i nu t es. T he i nt er fer enc e w i t h cus t odychar ge w as s ubs equent l ydi s m i s s ed bec aus e cus t ody had r evert ed t o L C C S undert he pri or or der and nei t her W y m an norK r ant z had l egal cus t ody of D akot a. W hen t he cus t ody i s s ue came up forr ehea r i ng i n O ct ober2002, an agr eementhad been r eac hed thr ough m edi at i on underw hi ch LC C S’ s cus t odyw as t er m i nat ed, W y m an w as gr ant ed l egal cus t ody , and K r ant z w as aw ar ded vi s i t at i on. T his act i on , fi l ed i n Jul y 20 03 and am end ed short l yt hereaft er, asser t ed clai m s agai nst O ffi cer W al l ace , t he C i t y of T ol edo, K eel y G r ay , and the LC C S. I n D ece m ber2004, aft er
a n o p p o rtu n ityf

o r d isc o v e ry , d e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in th e ir f a v o r w ith
r es pectt o al l of pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s . T he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fort he
r eas ons s etfor t h i n t he w r i t t en dec i s i on of A pr i l 15, 2005, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. W e re v iew th e d istric t c o u rt’s d e c isio n g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo
. Sm ith
v. A m er i t ech , 129 F. 3d 857, 863 ( 6t h C i r . 1 9 97)
. Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen t her e ar e no i s s ues of m at er i al fac t i n di s put e and the movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas
a m a tte r o f

la w . F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c)
. I n deci di ng a mot i on fors um m aryj udg m en t, t he
cou r tm us tvi ew t he fa ctual i nfer ence s and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof t heNo. 05-3636 6

n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Mat s us hi t a E l ec. I

ndus
. C o. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 475 U
. S. 5 7 4 , 587 (19 8 6 ). A. S t a t e La w Cl a i ms T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o a l l of t he def endant s , fi ndi ng bot h t hat t he def endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o i m m uni t yfr om s ui ton t he s t at e l aw t or tcl ai m s and t hat pl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o r ai s e a que s t i on of fa cton t he mer i t s . Pl ai nt i ff’ s appea l chal l enges t he f i n d i n g s o f

i mmu n i t y g e n e r a l l y , a n d a r g u e s s p e c i f i c a l l yt h a th e c o u l d p r e v a i l o n h i s c l a i ms of fa l s e arr es t , as s aul t , and def amat i on. T he O hi o Pol i t i cal Subdi vi s i on T or tL i abi l i t yA ctpr ovi des i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t yon
s ta te la w to rt c la im s f

o r p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n s a n d th e ire m p lo y e e s . O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2 7 4 4
. 0 2 a n d § 2 7 4 4
. 0 3
. F o rp o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s , l i ke t he Ci t yo f To l e d o a n d t h e LCC S B o a rd , a th re e -t ie re d a n a lysis is re q u ir e d
. C at erv. C i t y of C l eve l and , 697 N
. E
. 2d 610, 614 ( O hi o 1998)
. Fi r s t , a pol it ical su b di vi s i on i s “notl i abl e i n damages i n a ci vi l act i on for i nj ur y , d ea th, o r l os s t o per s ons orpr oper t yal l egedl ycaus ed byanyactorom i s s i on of t he pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on oran empl oy ee of t he pol it i cal s ubdi vi s i on i n connec t i on w i t h a gover nm ent al orpr opr i et ar yfunct i on. ” O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2 7 4 4
. 0 2 ( A ) ( 1 )
. T h a ti m m u n i t y, h o w ev er, i s su b

ject t o fiv e statuto ryex ce p ti o n s set fo rt h in O h io R ev . C o d e § 2 7 4 4
. 0 2 (b)(1 )- ( 5)
. Fi nal l y , i f an exce pt i on appl i es , i m m uni t ym aybe r es t or ed undert he thi r d t i erof t he anal y s i s i f t he pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on es t abl i s hes one of the def ens es l i s t ed i n O hi o R ev. C ode § 2744. 03. T he empl oy ee of a pol i t i ca l su b d i vi s i on, on t he otherhand, i s i m m une fr om l i abi l i t y unl es s : ( 1) t he empl oy ee’ s act s orom i s s i ons w er e “mani fes t l yout s i de the s cope ofNo. 05-3636 7

Since the e ve nts in this ca se , thi s se ct io n has b ee n am ended to cl ar if y th at the e xce pt io n to 2 immunity a pp li es “when c iv il liability is expressly

imposed upon the political subdivisionby a section of the RevisedCode.” O HI O R EV . C ODE § 2744.02(B) (5) (a s ame nded e ff
. Ap r. 9, 2003). th e e m p lo y e e ’s e m p lo y m e n t o r o f f icia l re sp o n sib ili ties ” ; (2 ) th e a c ts o r o m iss io n s w e re “ w ith
m a licio u s p u rp o se , in b a d f a ith , o r in a w a n to n o r re c k les s m a n n e r ” ; o r, (3 ) “ [ l]iab ili tyis expr es s l yi m pos ed upon t he em pl oy ee by a sec t i on of t he R evi s ed C ode. ” O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2 7 4 4
. 0 3 (A )(6)(a)-(c). 1. Pol i t i c al Subdi vi s i ons Pl ai nt i ff s eeks t o hol d t he C i t yof Tol edo and L C C S l i abl e for t he ac t s orom i s s i ons
o f th e ire m p lo y e e s , W a lla c e a n d G r a y , in c o n n e c tio n w ith a g o v e rn m e n ta l f u n c tio n . O H IO R EV . C OD E § 2 7 0 4 .0 1 (C ) (d e f in in g “ g o v e rn m e n tal f

u n c tio n ” ). T h is g iv e s rise to im m u n ity unl es s t he s t atut or yexce pt i ons ar e es t abl i s hed. W i t h r es pectto L C C S, pl ai nt i ff r el i es on t he exc ept i on, l i ke the one ment i oned for i ndi vi dual emp loy ee s , w hi ch pr ovi des t hata pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on i s noti m m une “w hen li abi l i t yi s expr es s l yi m pos ed upon the pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on bya s ect i on of t he R evi s ed C ode. ” O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2 7 4 4 .0 2 (B ) ( 5 ) (a s a m e n d e d e f f. Ju n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 ). U n d e r th is excep t i on , l i abil i t yi s not express l yi m po sed “m erel ybecau se t hat s ection im po ses a
r es pons i bi l i t yor m andat or ydut yupon a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on, ” or“bec aus e thats ect i on us es t he t er m ‘ s hal l ’ i n a pr ovi s i on per t ai ni ng t o a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on. ” Id ; s ee Es t at e of R i dl ey
v. H am i l t on C ount

y Bd. of Mental R etar dat i on and D eve l opm entalD is abi l i t i es , 809 N
. E
. 2d 2 , 7 (O h io 2 0 0 4 ) (discu ssing am en d m en ts t o § 2 7 4 4
. 0 2 (B )(5)). 2No. 05-3636 8

P l ai nti ff argues t hat LC C S i s not i m m un e from l i abil i t y for G ray ’s con du ctbecau se
s he vi ol at ed the dut yt o i nves t i gat e cl ai m s of chi l d abus e or negl ect i m pos ed byO hi o R ev. C ode § 2151. 421. Fi r s t and for emost , as t he di s t r i ctcour tobs er ved, pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s do not in v o lv e a f

a ilu re to in v e stig a te a re p o rt o f k n o w n o r s u s p e c ted c h ild a b u se o r n e g lec t. I ns t ead, pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hat G r ayfai l ed t o “i nves t i gat e” the s t atus of t he cus t odyor der befor e advi s i ng t he pol i ce thatW y m an had c us t odyof t he chi l d. Sect i on 2151. 421 nei t her
cr eat es s uch a dut y , nor expr es s l y i m pos es l i abi l i t y for fai l i ng t o chec k t he fi l e t o confi r m t he statu s o f a cu stod yo rde r. M oreove r, even i f plai nti ff had al l eged a fai l ure to i nv est i gate a reportof ch i l d ab use i n vi ol at i on of § 2151. 421, t he O hi o Supr eme C our thas held that§ 2151. 421 does not
e x p re ss lyim p o se liab ili tyo n p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s o r t h e ir e m p lo y e e s f o r f a ilu re to i nves t i gat e chi l d abus e forpurpos es of t he exc epti o n s t o i m m uni t yunder§ 2744. 02( B ) ( 5)
a n d § 2 7 4 4 .0 3 (A )( 6 )( c ). Mars hal l v. Mont gom er y C ount y C hi ldr en Ser vs . B d. , 750 N
. E
. 2d 5 4 9 , 5 5 3 -5 4 (O h io 2 0 0 1 ); buts ee Cam pbel lv. B ur t on , 750 N
. E
. 2d 539 ( O hi o 2001) ( hol di ng t hatcr i m i nal penal t yforfai l ur e t o repor t c h il d a b u s e a s re q u ire d b y§ 2 1 5 1 .4 2 1 e x p re ss ly im p o ses liabili tyfo r pu rpo ses o f § 2 7 4 4
. 0 5 (B )(5) an d § 2 7 4 4
. 0 3 (A )(6)(c)). I n a r g u i n g t h a tt h e Ci t yo f T o l e d o i s n o ti mm u n e f r o m l i a b i l i t yu n d e rs t a t e l a w, pl ai nt i ff doe s notr el yon anyof t he fi ve s t atut or y exce pt i ons enumer at ed i n O hi o R ev. C ode § 2744. 02( B ) ( 1)
- ( 5)
. A ppar ent l yconfus i ng t he exc ept i ons t h at w o u l d appl yt o pol i t i cal subd i vis i on s and thei r em ploy ees, plai n tiff a rgues t hat the C i t yi s not i m m un e beca use D et ect i ve S chroed er exceeded t he scope of his authori t y and / or act ed i n a w anton or reckl essNo. 05-3636 9

P l a i nt i f f c i t es Brodief

or th e pr op os it io n th at

ac hi ldre n se rv ic es b oard c ou ld b e li ab le f

or f ai lure 3 to perform

inve stig ativ e duties under § 2151.4 21. Brod ie v. Su mm it Co unty Child ren Servs. Bd

. , 554 N. E.2 d 1301 , 1308 (Oh io 19 90). H owe v er, the q uestionin Brod

ie wa s no twhe the r

th e r e wa s st atut ory imm

un i ty, but whe ther the “pub lic duty ” rule was a bar to m unicipa l liability
. See Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edu c. , 8 08 N
. E
. 2 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 7 n . 2 ( O h i o 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t i n gth at Brodie arose in the 19 80s duringa “twilight pe riod” whe n m un ic ip alli ab il ity

h ad b ee n jud ic ia ll y

a bo li sh ed , th e ne w im

m un ity s tatute w as n ot

e ff ec ti v e, and

th e “p ub li c duty ” ru le w ou ld

b ar li ab il ity if th e duty w as o w ed

to th e pu bl ic at l arg e)
. m annerw i t hi n t he m eani ng of O hi o R ev. C ode § 2744. 03( A ) ( 6) ( a) and ( b)
. B eca us e pl ai nt i ff has s ued the C i t yfort he ac t s of i t s empl oy ees i n connec t i on w i t h a gover nm ent al funct i on
a n d h a s n o t ar g u e d th a t an yo f th e e x c e p tio n s to im m u n ityf o r a p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n a p p ly i n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ct cour tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C i t yon plai nti ff’s s t at e l aw t ortcl ai m s. 3 2. E m pl oy ees Fi r s t , fort he re as ons di s cus s ed above, w e fi nd pl ai nt i ff c annotr el yon t he exc ept i on to im m u n it yforl i abi l i t y“expr es s l yi m pos ed upon the empl oy ee by[O hi o R ev. C ode § 2151. 421]
. ” O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2744. 03( A ) ( 6) ( c)
. Pl ai nt i ff al s o ar gues t hatt he i ndi vi dual defe ndant s ar e n o t im m une bec aus e thei ract s orom i s s i ons w er e done “ w i t h m al i ci ous purpos e, i n bad fa i t h, ori n a w ant on o r re ck l es s m anner . ” O HI O R EV . C OD E § 2 7 4 4 .0 3 (A )(6 )(b ) . P lain tiff d o e s n o t ac tu a llyc o n ten d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts a c ted w ith
m al i ci ous purpos e ori n bad fa i t h, butar gues t hatt her e i s a ques t i on of f ac tw hetherG r ay act ed “ne gl i gent l y t o t he poi nt of r eckl es s nes s ” or w hether t he pol i ce act ed i n a “w ant on or
re c k le s s m a n n e r.” W ant onnes s i s t he per ver s e di s r egar d of a know n r i s k s uch thatt he ac t orm us thave b e e n a w a re th a t h is c o n d u c t w o u ld p ro b a b ly r e s u lt in in ju ry. Fa b re

y v . M c D o n a ld V ill
.No. 05-3636 10

P o li ce D ep ’t , 6 3 9 N .E .2 d 3 1 , 3 5 (O h io 1 9 9 4 ). O n e a c ts re c k les slyif h e a c ts o r in ten tio n a lly fai l s t o acti n cont r avent i on of a know n d u ty , k n o w ing orhavi ng r eas on t o know t hather conductcr eat es an unr eas onabl e r i s k of harm an d thatt he r i s k i s s ubs t ant i al l ygr eat ert han th e ri s k n e c e s s a ry to m a k e th e c o n d u c t n e g lig e n t. I d. ; T h o m p so n v . M

c N e ill , 559 N
. E
. 2d 705 (O h io 1 9 9 0 ). T h e is s u e o f w a n to n o r r e c k le s s c o n d u c t is typ ic a lly a ju ry q u e s tio n , Fabr ey , 639 N
. E
. 2d at35, butonl yi f t her e i s evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d fi nd
w a n to n o r r e c k le s s c o n d u c t. See R eynolds v. C i t y of O akw ood , 5 2 8 N .E .2 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 2 (O h io A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). G ray ’s on l yi nv olvem ent w i t h the even t s ati ssue i n t his case w as t o incorr ect l yadv i se t he pol i ce t hat W y m an had cus t odyof t he chi l d w hen the trut h w as t hatnei t herW y m an nor K ra n tz h a d c u sto d ya t th a t p o in t in tim e . T h is, p lain tiff c o n ten d s, re su lted in th e sto p th a t is t he bas i s of t he fa l s e arr es t , as s aul t , and defamat i on cl ai m s . A l t hough G r ayadmi t t edl yhad
a c c e ss to th e f

ile an d c o u ld h a v e c o n tac ted th e ju v e n ile co u rt, it is un d isp u ted th a t G ra yd id notknow aboutt he obj ect i ons pl ai nt i ff fi l ed t o t he cus t odyor dert hr ee y ear s ear l i erand w as notaw ar e thatt he cus t odyor derhad bee n vaca t ed pendi ng reh ea ri n g o f t he cus t odyi s s ue. W e a g r e e wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t hat G r ay act ed i n a w ant on or r eckl es s m anner for purpos es of i m m uni t y fr om l i abi l i t y on t he s t at e l aw cl ai m s.W i t h r es p ec tt o W al l ace , pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hatt her e w as atl eas ta ques t i on of fa ct
w hetherhe acted i n a w anton or reckl ess m ann er fo r purposes of § 27 44
. 03 (A )( 6)( b). F al se
a rr e s t is a n u n la w f

u l d e te n tio n b yla w e n f o r c e m e n t. R og ers v. B arbera , 164 N
. E
. 2d 162No. 05-3636 11

( O hi o 1960)
. T he for ce an offi cer us es t o s ubdue and handcuf f a s us pect , unl es s pr i vi l eged,
c o n s titu te s a n a s s a u lt o r b a tte ry. Love v. C i t y of P or tC l i nt on , 5 2 4 N .E .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 (O h io 1988)
. D efa m at i on i s t he publ i cat i on of a f al s e and defa m at or ys t at ement of fa ct , m ade i ntention all y orw i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d fort he trut h, t hatpr oxi m at el ycaus es i nj ur yt o t he p la in tif f
. D upl erv. M

ans f i eld Jour nalC o. , 4 1 3 N
. E
. 2 d 1 1 8 7 (O h io 1 9 8 0 ). W al l ace arr i ved att he s cene t o fi nd pl ai nt i ff y el l i ng, cur s i ng, and re fus i ng t o getback i nt o t he van as or der ed. W al l ace us ed s om e for ce t o r es t r ai n pl ai nt i ff t o as s i s ti n eff ectuat i ng t he sto p , w h ic h l as t ed 25 mi nut es . Pl ai nt i ff a l s o compl ai ns t hatt he s pect acl e att r act ed the nei ghbor s w ho hear d accus ati o n s t hatpl ai nt i ff di d nothave c us t odyof t he chi l d orw as unl aw ful l yi nt er fer i ng w i t h W y m an’ s cus t odyof t he chi l d. A l t hou g h n eit heractual l yhad
cus t ody , t he off

i cer s di d notknow t hatt he or dergr ant i ng custo dyt o W y m an had be en
vaca t ed. M or eover , w hen pl ai nt i ff’ s paper s cal l ed the issu e i nt o ques t i on, t he pol i ce cont act ed G r ayagai n t o confi r m t hatW y m an had c us t odybefor e al l ow i ng t he chi l d t o l eave
w i t h her
. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatt he evi dence and i nfer ence s t aken i n t he l i ght
m ost favo rabl e t o p l ai nti ff d o n ot s up po rta fi nd i ng t hat W al l ace acted i n a w anton or reckl ess
m anneri n connec t i on w i t h t he det ent i on, t he mannerbyw hi ch i tw as eff ectuat ed, orany st at em ents m ade co ncerni ng t he cu st od yof the chil d w i t hin ear shot of t he n ei gh bo rs . B . 42 U . S. C . § 1983 T o es t abl i s h a cl ai m u n d er § 1983, t he pl ai nt i ff musti dent i fya r i ghts ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of t he U ni t ed S t at es and t he depr i vat i on of t hat r i ght by a per s on act i ng
u n d e r c o lo r o f

s ta te la w . W

es t v. A tki ns , 487 U
. S. 42, 48 ( 1988)
. A l t hough pl ai nt i ffNo. 05-3636 12

This is unders tandab le a s (1) Off ic er Sc her er , who enter ed the v an, wa s not nam ed a s a def

endant ; 4 and ( 2) the e vi dence indic at es that the o ff ic er e n te re dt h e van to r etri ev e the co urt pa pe rs at p la inti ff

’s insisten ce. i dent i fi es t he r i ght to be fr ee f r om unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , pl ai nt i ff ha s not
ar gued t hat i tw as err ort o gr ants um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s on t he cl ai m t hatt he van
w as unl aw ful l ys ear ched. T he appe al focus es i ns t ead on pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m that he w as 4 unl aw ful l ydet ai ned and a r r es t ed w i t houtj us t i fi cat i on orpr obabl e ca us e. A s ei zur e for Four t h A m endment purpos es occur s w hen, by m eans of phy s i cal for ce
o r a s h o w o f a u th o ri ty, a n in d iv id u a l’ s f re e d o m o f m o v e m e n t is re s tr a in e d
. U ni t ed Stat es v. Me n d e n h a ll , 446 U
. S. 544, 553 ( 1980)
. T he Four t h A m endment per m i t s an off i cert o s t op
a n d b rie f lyd e tain a n in d iv id u a l f o r an in v e stig a tiv e p u rp o se if th e o f f ice r h a s a re a so n a b le
s u s p i c i o n s u p p o r t e d b y a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s t h a tt h e i n d i v i d u a l i s e n g a g e d i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. T e rr y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S
. 1 , 3 0 (1 9 6 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Hens l ey , 4 6 9 U
. S
. 2 2 1 , 2 2 6 -27 (19 8 5 ). A n arr es t , on t he otherhand, m us tbe s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve a n i ndi vi dual h a s c o m m itte d o r i s c o m m ittin g a c ri m in a l o f f e n s e . B e c k

v . O h io , 3 7 9 U
. S
. 8 9 , 9 1 (19 6 4 ). T he r i ghtt o m ake a s t op oran arr es tnece s s ar i l y carr i es w i t h i t t he ri ghtt o us e s om e degr ee
o f p h y s ic a l co e rc io n o r th re a t o f f o rc e to e f f e c tu a te it. G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U
. S. 386, 396 (19 8 9 ). I t i s cl ear t hat a sei zur e occur r ed w hen t he offi cer s s t opped pl ai nt i ff’ s van bym eans
o f a sh o w o f

a u th o rity . T h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e d e ten tio n w a s ju stif ied b yre a so n a b le
s us pi ci on orpr obabl e ca us e. A tt he t i m e thatD et ect i ve Schr oederr eques t ed thatuni for m ed
o f f ice rs m a k e th e sto p , h e h a d se e n th e o rd e r gr a n tin g c u sto d yto W y m a n , h a d c o n f irm e d w ithNo. 05-3636 13

In co nnect ion w it h the is sue o f st at e law i mmunity , p la inti ff s ee ms to argue that the po li ce we re 5 with out authority to sto p him andremove his son withou t a written courtorder or exigen t circumstan ces. Th e remova l of a childfrom his custodi al pare nts’ h ome is a seizure for Fou rthAmen dm ent purposes, whi ch is constitut ionally reasonable if it is pursu ant to a court order, is supported by pro bable cause, or is ju stified by exigent circu msta n ces. Brok aw v. Me rc er

County , 235 F.3d 1000, 1010 ( 7th Cir
. 2000); see also O’Donnell v
. Brown , 335 F. S upp. 2d78 7, 80 6-0 7 (W .D. Mich . 200 4). It is, how ever, the chil d’s r ight t o b e f r e e f r o m unr e a s o nab l e s e i zur e that i s i n q ue s t i o n. In O’Donnell , the c o urtw a s c ar e f ul t o di s t i ngui s h the parents’ claim for un lawfu l entry int o the home from the cla ims of the children th at their forcible removal wa s an i l l e g a l s e i zur e . Ov e r l o o k i ngwhe the r thi s c a s e e v e n i nv o l v e d r e mo v a l f r o m ac us t o di a l p ar e nt , no claims were made in th is case by or on behalf of Dakota. th e c a se w o rk e r th a t W y m a n h a d c u sto d y o f th e c h ild , h a d o b se rv e d p lain tiff c o m e o u t o f h is h o m e w ith tw o c h ild re n , a n d h a d c o n f irm e d th a t th e v a n w a s re g iste re d to p lain tiff. T h is i nfo rm at i on provided at l eastreas on able s uspici on t hat pl ai nti ff w as com m i t t i ng t he o ffen se of unl aw ful i nt er fer ence w i t h cus t odyof t he chi l d. 5 Pl ai nt i ff’ s m ai n cont ent i on s eems t o be thatt he Ter r y sto p rip e n e d al m ostim m e d iate ly i nt o a d e fa c to arr est no t supp ort ed by probab l e cause w hen t he o ffi cers drew t heirw eapo ns, h an d cu ff ed hi m , and phy s i cal l yhel d hi m agai ns tt he van dur i ng the dur at i on of t he s t op. A lth o u g h n o b ri g h t lin e d is tin g u is h e s a n in v e s tig a tiv e d e te n tio n f ro m a n a rr e s t, F l or i da v. R oyer , 460 U
. S. 491, 506 ( 1983) , offi cer s m aynot “s eek t o ver i fy t hei r s us pi ci ons bym eans t hatappr oach the condi t i ons of arr es t . ” I d. a t 4 9 9 . T h e f

a c to r s w e h a v e c o n sid e re d in deci di ng w het h er that l i ne has been c r os s ed i ncl ude tr ans por t at i on t o anotherl ocat i on,
s i gni fi cantr es t rai nt s on fr eedom of m ovement i nvol vi ng phy s i cal confi nement orot her
c o e r c io n , a n d th e u s e o f w e a p o n s o r b o d ily f

o rc e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez
-A r i as , 344 F. 3d 623, 627- 28 ( 6t h C i r . 2003)
. H ow ever , w e have al s o hel d t hatnei t hert he off i cer s ’ di s pl ay of t h eir w ea p o ns , nort he us e of ha ndcuff s exce ed the bounds of a Ter r y s t op w hen
re a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a ry f

o r t h e p ro te c tio n o f

th e o f f ic e rs o r t o e f

f e c tu a te th e d e te n tio n . SeeNo. 05-3636 14

We f urthe r agre e with the dis tr ic t co urt that al tho ugh no arr es t w as ma de, the o ff ic er s had p ro ba

bl e 6 c au s e to arr e s tpl a i n t i f

f fo r in t e r f e r e n c e w i thlaw f

u l cu s t od y. H o u ston v. C lark

C o u n ty Sh erif

f D ep u ty Jo h n D o es 1 -5 , 1 7 4 F
. 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 4 -15 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D ot

s on , 4 9 F
. 3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 -31 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). In th is ca se , th e o f

f ice rs d re w th e ir w e a p o n s in o rd e r t o e f f e c tu a te th e sto p a s, b ya ll
acco u n ts, pl ai nt i ff i m m edi at el ygotoutof t he van, appr oache d the off i cer s w hi l e y el l i ng profan i t i es, and refused t o co m plyw hen ordered t o g et b a c k int o the van
. W i t nessi ng t his , W a l l a c e o r d e r e d p l a i n t i f f t o p u t h i s h a n d s o n t h e v a n . W h e n p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t c o m p l y, W a llac e p u sh e d p lain tiff a g a in st th e v a n , h a n d c u f f e d h im , a n d h e ld h im a g a in st th e v a n w h ile t he i nves t i gat i on pr ocee ded. Pl ai nt i ff w as notpl ace d i n t he bac k of a p o li ce car , w as not for ci bl yt aken to an ot herl ocat i on, and w as notgi ven Mi r anda w arn ing s. T h e o ff icers
re a so n a b ly p u rsu e d th e in v e stig a tio n , lo o k in g a t p lain tiff ’s p a p e rs a n d c o n f irm in g a g a in w ith G r ay t hat W y m an had cus t ody befor e al l ow i ng t he chi l d t o l eave w i t h hi s m ot her
. T he s t op l as t ed appr oxi m at el y 25 m i nut es , at w hi ch t i m e pl ai nt i ff w as uncuff ed and r el eas ed. U nder th e c irc u m sta n c e s, w e f in d th a t W a llac e p a rticip a ted in a law f u l in v e stig a tiv e sto p th a t d id
n o t r ipen into a n inf

o rm al or d e fa c to a rre st. 6 W e a lso fin d su m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop erlyen tered in f av o r of G rayb ec au se th ere
w as no evi dence tha tG r aypar t i ci pat ed i n t he s t op ort he det ent i on. M or eover , al t hough pl ai nt i ff r el i es on P ar r at tv. Tayl or , 451 U
. S. 527 ( 1981) , fort he pr opos i ti o n that pr oof of
n e g lig e n c e w o u ld b e s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a c la im a g a in s t G ra yu n d e r § 1 9 8 3 , P a rr a tt w as
o v e r ru l e d b y Da n i e l

s v . Wi l l i a ms , 474 U
. S. 327, 330- 31 ( 1986)
. N orw as i terr ort o gr ant
su m m aryjud g m en t t o the m u n ici p al de fe n d an ts be ca u se (1 ) th ere ca n b e n o li ab il ityw h ereNo. 05-3636 15

th e p la in tif

f h a s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n , C i t y of Los Angel es v. Hel l er , 475 U
. S. 796, 799 ( 1986) ; and ( 2) pl ai nt i ff offe r ed no evi dence t o s how t hatt he s t op r es ul t ed f ro m a n yc u s to m , u s a g e , o r o f f ic ia l p o lic yo f

th e m u n ic ip a l d e f

e n d a n ts , Monel lv. D ep’t of Soc. Ser vs . , 4 3 6 U
. S
. 6 5 8 , 6 9 0 -92 (19 7 8 ). AFF I RM ED
.