F& W ha d been on t he t ow l i s t f or t he C i t y of M ans f

i el d, t he O hi o St at e H i gh way P at r ol , t he Lexi ng t on P ol i ce 1 D ep artm en t , an d t he R i ch l an d C o un t y Sh erif f

. T he y were ev en t ua l l y rem o ve d f ro m all o f

t he se li st s. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0196n.06 Case No. 08- 3731 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MELANIE BRINER, et al., P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s,

v. CITY of O NTARIO, et al., De fend ant s- App e lle e s.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , C hie f Judg e ; K EN NE DYand M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Ju dge. The pl ai n t i ff s appea l the g rant of summar y judgme nt to the defe ndants in this a ction for r etaliation and r elated c laims arising from the r emoval of the ir bu sin e ss f

ro m a mun ic ipa l to wi nglis t. F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e AF F I RM i n p art , REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. BACK GR OUND This case arises out of a series of disputes be tween Appellants Tom and Me lanie B riner a nd

cer tain officia ls of the City

of Ontar io, O hio ( the “City ”), wher e the B riners r eside. In ear ly 2004, the B ri ne rs purc ha sed a towin g c omp any , F & W To wi ng(“ F & W”) , w hic h, amon g oth e r t hin g s, towed vehic les for the Cit y and other near by municipalities as a par

ticipant on the towing “rotational

c a ll l ist ” ma int a ine d b y

the po lic e de pa

rtme nts of

the va ri ou s munic ipa lit ie s. 1T h e re is so m e e v id e n c e tha t D e t. S n a v e ly m a y ha v e ha d a p re -ex isting b ia s a g a ins t M s. H isso n g . M s. H isso n g ’s 2 son, Jason, had m arri ed D et

. Snave l y ’ s ex- wi f e, and t he t wo had b een i nvo l ved i n an al t ercat i o n s ho rt l y af t er Jason and D e t. S n a v e ly’s e x -w ife b e g a n d a ting

. J a so n su b se q u e n tly fil e d a c o m p la int a g a ins t D e t. S n a v e ly with the D e p a rtm e n t. D et

. Snav el y ha d al s o prev i ous l y ar r es t ed anot her of M s . H i s s ong’ s s ons f or aut o t hef

t and kn ew t hat t he s ame s on ha d b een i ncarcerat ed i n a f ed eral pe ni t ent i ary f

o r nar co t i cs di st ri b ut i o n.

2 On De c e mbe r 2 0, 20 04 , th e F & W of fi c e wa s b ur g lari zed

and $2 ,0 00 w a s st ole n f

ro m th e c a sh draw er. The office was not ransa cked and not hing else was taken or disturbed. The B riners r eporte d the theft to the Onta

rio City Police Depa

rtment (the “ Depa

rtment”), a

nd stated t hat t hey believed that Billy Hamm, a f

ormer F &W employ ee, had committed the crime. A fter a n initial investi g ation by other off icer s, the ca se wa s turned over to D etec tive Riley Snavely

. Det. Snavely left the crime sc ene and drove to the Hamms’ house. Mr . Hamm was not at home, but was wa iting at the police station when De t. Snavely

returne d there

. Det. Snavely

interviewe d Mr. Hamm and his wife at the police station, but did not recor d the

conver sation in any way . Det. S navely interviewe d an F&W employ ee named Tim (who, a ccor ding to Det. Snavely , vouched f or Ha mm), and attempted to c ontact other F& W e m p l o y ee s , but was

un a ble to c on vin c e any

oth e r e mpl oy e e s to c ome to t he po lic e statio n to be int e rvi ewed

. At his deposition, Det. Snavely indicated that one F &W employ ee, D ebra Hissong, r efuse d to come to the police station bec ause she wished to rema in with her husba nd, who was r ecove ring from open- hear t

s u r g e r y. 2 Det. Snavely

never solved the investig ation into the F& W b u r g la r y . H e appa

rently conclude d that Mr. Hamm had not done it and then closed the case , explaining that F& W employ ees w ould not

c ome to t he po lic e statio n to g ive state me nts

. There is some evidence that Det. Snavely closed the case beca

use he thought the Br iners had sta g e d th e ro bb e ry the mse lve s. Me lanie B ri ne r r e c ounte d h e r f ina l di sc us sio n w ithDe t. S nave ly thi s

w ay:3

[De t. S nave ly ] sta

rt e d to say

thi ng s li ke , w e ll, Mr s. B ri ne r, B ill y Ham [ m] tol d me y ou ’r e in f

ina nc ia l tr ou ble [,] and I sa id, no , I

wo uld no t di sc us s my

fi na nc e s w ithmy employ ees, a

nd [Det. Snavely ] said ---- he looked ar ound the building and he said, y ou must have a pr etty

big loa n on this buil ding a

nd ever y thing, and Isaid, what doe s that have to do with a

ny thing? [Det. Snave ly ] wa s, in my mind, the other off

icer was the re , [but D e t. S nave ly ] wa s in sin uatin g that ma

y be we ha d r ob be d o ur se lve s. Th e B ri ners e xpre sse d s ome dis satis fa c tio n w ithwh a t th e y pe rc e ive d a s D e t. S nave ly ’s fa ilure to adequately

investigate the ca se. Shortly afte r the burg lary

and cur tailed inv e s ti g a

ti on, on or about De cembe r 27, 2004, Off icer D o nWa ll a c e a c c o mp an ie d M r . H amm

to F & W t o o b ta in a c o p y o f s o me p ay

r e c o r d s f r o m F & W, rele vant to Mr. Hamm’s former employ ment with F& W. Upset t hat the De partment would send a n office r to assist the person who the y believed w as r esponsible for a burg lary the Depa

rtment alleg edly ref used to solve, the B riners w ent to the pol ice station on Dec ember 28, 2004, to complain. Although the y

had no appointment, Ontario Police Chief Ti mothy McClare n ag ree d to speak with the Br iners, but did so in the lobby of the police station, rather than in the privac y

of his office

. The B riners indicated t hat t hey wer e upset but Chief McClar an re sponded that Off icer Wallace ha d

mere l y p er fo rmed a

“civil standby ,” to kee p a potentially volatile situation under control. The B ri ne rs c omp la ine d th a t th is w a s an ins ult and an impr op e r u se of ta x pay e r f

un ds , th a t D e t. S nave ly had been “rude and disrespec tful to the m,” and that the burg lary of their business was not re ceiving the attention it deserve d. The B riners a lleg ed that Chief Mc Claran “ took a t o n e” wi t h them, an attitude of impatience and intimidation, made it clear that they wer e annoy

ing him, and w alked a

way without saying g oodby e. McClar an appa rently wrote the m a lett er ( not in the rec ord), infor ming them that their complaint had no mer it and that the investig ation of their bur g lary was c losed. The evidenc e bef

ore the district court indicate s t h at t h is was their fir st complaint ever a bout the De pa rtme nt.T h e bu r g l ar y oc cu r r ed on D ec embe r 20, 2004. 3
D uri ng t he D ep art m ent ’ s i nvest i gat i o n o f t he t hef t , La rr y i ni t i al l y cl ai m ed t hat he had l ef t t he t i t l e i n t he gl o ve 4 b o x, but l at er r ecanted und er oath. 4 Duringthe same tim e period (circ a De cembe r 2004 ), the B riners ha d ag ree d to trade two of 3 their old tow trucks to an e mploy ee, L arr y Paone, for a 1993 GMC pick-up truck. O n Dec ember 1, 20 04 , th e pa

rt ie s e xch ang e d th e tr

uc ks — th e B ri ne rs g ave L arr y the tw o to w tru c ks , tr ans fe rr e d th e ir titles to L arr

y , and took phy sical possession of the GMC pick-up. This is not disputed. The B riners parke d the GMC pick-up in their dr iveway in front of their house for the f ollowing two months. At th e ti me o f th e e xc h an g e , L ar r y d id n o t p r o v id e th e ti tl e to th e G M C p ic k

- u p tr u c k , c la im in g that 4 he could not find the title but promising to provide it when found. On Dec ember

12, 2004, the B riners alleg edly lear ned that L arr

y had been misusing company

a sse ts f or pe rs on a l g a in a

nd fi red h im

. On Decem be r 1 6, 20 04 , L arr y c ame to t he F & W of

fi c e to discuss this termination. He was unable to c onvince the Br iners to r econside r his termination, but Ms. Brine r ag ain re minded him that he still needed to bringthe title to the GMC truck. The B riners

c l a i m e d t h a t L ar

r y n e xt c am e t o t h e o f

f i c e o n D e c e mb e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , t o d e l i v e r th e tit le to t he GM C pick-up truc k, and that L arr y signe d the title in the F& W off ice a nd Melanie B riner nota

rized it on that day . L arr

y claimed that he had not g one to F& W that day , but had bee n with his father, D ave Paone, all day . The B riners e ventually pursued (and won) a civil suit ag ainst L arr y on a conve rsion claim re g ardingthe truck. A t the trial in that case , L arr y testified that he c ouldn’t rec all wher e he was on De cembe r 30 and r eca nted his ear lier asse rtions. The c ourt made a n express finding: “ 14. L arr y delivere d the t i t l e for the ‘ 93 [GMC pick-up truc k] t o [t he B riners] on Dec ember 30, 2004. The Court finds that [L arr y ] di d in fac t sign the title in front of Melanie Br iner, a notar y .” F & W Towi ng v. Larry Paone , Case NO. 2005- CVH-1263, *3 (Ma n s f ie ld M u n ic ip a l C o u

r t, Ju d gme nt datedA t o n e p o int d u rin g his d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y, C h ie f M c C la ra n te stif ie d tha t h e a n d D a v e a re frien d s a n d w h ile 5 t hey d o n’ t “ social i ze, ” he sees and s p eaks wi t h D ave at l east onc e a m o nt h. 5 May 4, 2006). After the exchang e of posse ssion of the vehicle s , a dispute ar ose betwe en L arr y and the B ri ne rs ov e r t

he ir a g re e me nt. L arr

y c la ime d that the B ri ne rs ha d p ro mis e d to make so me re pa ir s to one of the tow trucks that L arr y rec eived. Alleg edly , the Br iners failed to do so, and L arr y proce eded to t ake a c tio n. At

so me po int

on De c e mbe r 3 0, 20 04 , L arr y and Da ve Pa on e we nt t o a

ve hic le tit le office , repor

ted the title “lost or stolen,” a nd obtained a duplicate title for the GMC truc k. Dave subsequently

went to the Briners’ home and took the GMC pick- up truck. He explained in a sworn state me nt: On

Janu ary 25 , 2 00 5, Itoo k a

tr uc k f ro m th e re sid e nc e of

the B ri ne rs . On that day , Icalled the Ontario Police after Ipicked up the tr

uck. Ispoke to a dispatche r first and the rea fter I talked to Chief McClar an. Ihave known Chief McClara n for many

y ear s an dwe have alwa y s been friendly , but we ar e not close f riends and w e do not socialize with eac h other. [5] This whole thing w as about me trying to protec t my son. I felt he w as being take n a dv anta g e of

. T he y [the B ri ne rs ] ha d fi re d him jus t 13 da y s b e fo re Chr istma s, a man with five kids, who was experienc ing dr ug problems, and then they did not pay him his l ast p ay c h e c k

. T h e y a ls o r e f u s e d to f ix a c lutc h o n a tr

u c k a s th e y

had promised my

son. Itook the truck in orde r to make these things right. If theBr ine rs an d F & W ha d pa id my so n ba c k wha t the y owe d him , I

wou ld h av e giv e n th e m t

he ir truck bac k

at any time. Iheld it for we ll over a year . Itol d my so n I wo uld take c are of

thi s me ss a

nd thi s is wh a t I

did

. Isim

ply called the Ontario P olice. I did not lie to the Ontario Police or Chief Mc Claran a bout this at a ll. I di d not claim t hat this was a court order, or that I had any lien, or that this was a lawful

repossession or recov ery. (under lining in orig inal, italics added)

. Whe n D ave Pa on e c a lle d Ch ie f M c Cla ra n, C h i e f M c C l a r a n a ssu re d h im that th e po lic e wo uld not interfer e. Chief Mc Claran then told the di spatche r t hat, i f a call came in from the B riners, theN o t e t hat D ave P ao ne st at ed , i n hi s sworn st at em ent , t hat he did no t t el l C h ie f M c C l aran i t was a l awf ul 6 repo ss ess i o n.

W hen as ked a bo ut t hi s det er mi nat i on of owner s hi p on t he wi t nes s s t and, Chi ef M cCl ar an was emphat i c: 7 [Q u e stio n ]. If D a v e P a o n e sa id he ha d the ti tle, tha t wa s the n e n d o f i t, yo u b e liev e d him , d o n ’t

b e liev e so m e b o d y e ls e th a t co m e s in w ith a va lid c e rtifi c a tio n o f t itl e . Y o u ’d al read y m ad e t hat co ncl usi o n. [M cC l ara n]. B ase d o n w ha t M r. P ao ne t o l d m e, yes. M cCl ar an t r i al t es t i mon y a t M el an i e B r i n er ’ s c r i mi n al t r i al ( h er ei n af t er , “ M cCl ar an T r i al T es t i mon y ”) a t 170. 6 dis patc he r s ho uld

no t tr e a t it a s a the ft , b ut s ho uld sim ply pr oc e ss a re po rt be c a us e it w a s n ot a

the ft , it was a leg al re possession of a truck. When the Br iners called the police to re port their truc k stolen, 6 the dis patc he r —

havin g be e n ins tr

uc te d by Chi e f Mc Cla

ra n — re pli e d th a t “ Chi e f M c Cla ra n s a id the truck w as not stolen beca use it is back in the hands of its rig htful owner .” F irst Am. Compl . at ¶ 26. The B riners a lleg e that, bec ause D ave ne ver told Chief McClar an that he la wfully reposse ssed 7 the GMC tr

uck, Chief Mc Claren wa s denying le g itimate reque sts for police a ssistance in re taliation fo r t he B ri ne rs ’ c omp la int s a g a ins t th e De pa rtme nt. The B riners c ontinued to press their c ase. The y went t o the police station to file a r eport

conce rning th e th e f

t o f th e ir tr u c k an d p r e s e n te d

th e ir c o p y o f th e ti tl e w h ic hh a d

b e e ns ign e d

by L arr y Paone. Of

fice r Tom Hill was assig ned to take the Br iners’ state men t s an d beg in the investigation. Office r Hill took the Br iners bac k to an interviewroom and, unbe k n o wn s t to the Br iners, videotaped this conve rsation. Off icer Hill testified that, prior to this ti me, he wa s awa re of the B ri ne rs ’ c omp la int

a bo ut O ff ic e r Wa lla c e re g ard ingth e ci vil sta nd -b y , w hic h O ff

ic e r H ill char acte rized as a “ false or unfair c omplaint,” and that wa s the rea son he chose to videotape the

conver sation. The B riners g ave the ir statement to Off icer Hill, indicating that L arr

y Paone had stolen the GMC truck, a

nd then left the police station. Offic er Hi ll noted two conce rns about the title provided by the B riners. F irst, beca

use theIn t he space pr ov i ded f or t h e dat e of del i v er y , t h e n u mber on e i n “ 12/ 1/ 04" h ad bee n ov er - wr i t t en wi t h t he 8 nu mb er 30, t o re ad “ 12 / 30 / 04

. ” I n t he not ar y ’ s b ox, t he t wo i n “ 20 t h day o f D ec. ” had been over - wr i t t en wi t h a t hr ee, t o read “30 t h da y of D ec. ” Fi nal l y , t he p ri ce and od o m et er r ead i ng had not b een f i l l ed i n. T h e f ac t t h at La r r y of

f er ed, a n d O f

f i ce r H i l l a cc ept ed, a w i t n es s s t at eme n t r eg ar di n g t h e ev en t s a t F&W on 9 D ece mb er 30, 200 4, r at her t han ev ent s s ur r oundi ng t he al l ege d t hef t of t he t r uck b y Lar r y an d D ave , i s s om e e vi dence t hat O f f i cer H i l l was not engaged i n i nvest i gat i ng t he t hef t , but had al read y be gun i nvest i gat i ng M s. B ri ner. 7 Br iners had not y et reg istered the transfe r, t he ti tle was “open” and still in L arr y ’s name. Sec ond, the re we re c e rt a in h and -wri tte n a lte ratio ns to t he tr ans a c tio n p a g e of

the tit le

. Due to the se

8

conce rns, Off

icer Hill decided that the B riners w ould need to prove they actua lly owned the truck be fo re he c ou ld l e g iti mate ly c on sid e r i t a

the ft

. Of fi c e r H ill c a lle d D ave , w ho tol d h im that he and L arr y ha d “ re po sse sse d” the tr

uc k b e c a us e the B riners br eac hed their a g ree ment on the trade , and told Offic er Hill wher e to reach L arr y . Offic er Hill then called L arr

y , who told Office r Hill the same thing . L ater that day , Dave came to the police statio n a nd pr ov ide d th e du

pli c a te tit le L arr

y ha d obta ine d b y

c la imi ngthe or ig ina l ti tle ha d b e e n lo st

or sto le n. Of

fi c e r Hi ll pr ov ide d Da

ve wi th a wi tne ss s tate me nt f or m. D ave too k th a t f

or m ho me to L arr y , who filled it out, indicating that he had not g one to F& W on Decembe r 30, 2004, but had be en wi th D ave a ll d ay . Whe n D ave re tur ne d to the po lic e statio n w ithL arr y ’s c omp le te d w itn e ss 9 statement, Off

icer Hill verified it as thoug h he had taken the state ment himself. OfficerHill later admitted, under oath, to falsifying this ver ification. Of fi c e r H ill the n r e qu e ste d th a t th e B ri ne rs c ome to t he po lic e statio n to ans we r s ome questions. Office r Hill took them to the interrogat i on room and infor med them that he would be vi deo tap in g the i nt ervi ew. Offi cer Hil l repeat edl y ask ed Ms. Brin er whet her any on e els e atF&W had see n L arr

y sign the title on Dece mber 30. Ms. B riner f irst indicated that no one had se en L arr y sign the title a

nd later, afte r being presse d by Offic er Hill, indicated that she did not believe anyone had. Of fi ce r Hi ll urg ed her

to question F& W employ ees a nd obtain statements from a ny one whoI t i s uncl ear how t he D ece mb er 3 0 eve nt s at F& W ar e r el eva nt t o a det er mi nat i on of wh et her t he G M C t r uck 10 h a d b e e n sto le n , as it is u n d isp u te d tha t L a rr y, at so m e p o int o n o r p rio r to D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , p ro v id e d the B rin e rs w ith t he t i t l e t o t he G M C t ruck. M uch cl earer i s t he rel evance o f t he D ecem b er 30 event s at F& W t o O f f i cer H i l l ’ s ap p arent i nvest i gat i o n of M s. B ri ner. 8 had. Offic er Hill a lso r epea tedly asked Ms. B riner, in a varie ty of way s, whether she had c hang ed 10 the title, to which Ms. Brine r re sponded that she ha d not. At her de position, she ex plained that, eve n wh e n O ff ic e r H ill sp e c if

ic a lly a sk e d h e r a b o ut the sp e c if ic c ha ng e s O ff ic e r H ill wa s c on c e rn e d a

bo ut, sh e ha d und e rs too d him to b e a sk ingwh e the r s he ha d c ha ng e d it after

L arr y took the truck (i.e ., afte r J anuar y 25). B eca

use she ha d chang ed it at t he ti me she notar ized the titl e (that is, she chang ed them both on Dece mber 30, in orde r to complete the form ac curately , so she thoug ht), she adher ed to her statement that she ha d not chang ed the title. Office r Hill, howeve r, thoug ht that he had c aug ht her in a lie, and a

ppare ntly , could not contain his satisfac tion. At her de position, Melanie Br iner testified

a bo ut t he c on c lus ion

of thi s inte rv ie w a s f

oll ow s: Q u e s ti o n : Now, at s o me p o int i nti me d ur in g th e d e p o s it io ne ar li e r to d ay y ou said that the police ne ver believed any thing that y ou told them, true? M. B ri ne r: Ye s. Question: When did y ou come to that conc lusion? M. Br iner: Pretty much the night of J anuar y 25th when I found out that all that happene d was L arr y Paone got a phone call. Dave Paone pretty much just talked to the chief and they didn’t - - they [t he Ontario Police] made no indication that they we re g oin g to loo k into t

he du pli c a te tit le , h owit w a s o bta ine d, be c a us e Isa id it ha d to ha

ve been obtained fra

udulently

. I had possessi o n o f t h e t ruck. Nobody [had] filed a r eport a g ainst me for ha ving the truck. Qu e sti on : So o n Jan

ua ry 25 th, ‘0 5, y ou

ha d c onclu ded that th e City of On tari o w ou ld not believe you; is that true? M. B ri ne r: Whe n [Of fi c e r] To mmy Hi ll wa s y e lli ng at me in the ha llw ay , be tte r g e t a g ood lawy er, Mr s. Br iner. M. Br iner De po. at 24-25. Shortly there afte r, Off

icer Hill handed the investig ation over to De t. Snavely , who appe arsW h ile th e C o u n ty C le rk ’s le tter d o e s a p p e a r to c o n firm th a t D e t. S n a v e ly d id c o n v e rs e w ith c e rta in C o u n ty 11 C l er k e mp l oy ees , i t i ndi cat es t hat t he conve r s at i on occur r ed dur i ng “ t he s ummer of 200 5, ” wh i l e D et

. Snav el y al l ege s tha t t h e c o n v e rs a tio n t o o k p la c e in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 5 . M o re o v e r, the lette r sta te s o n ly t h a t t h e e m p lo ye e s info rm e d D e t. S n a v e ly t h a t t h e y w o u ld ha v e “q u e stio n e d ” the info rm a tio n , no t t h a t t h e title w o u ld h a v e b e e n vo id , as a lleg e d b y D e t. S n a v e ly. 9 to have f ormally abandone d any

investigation of theft of the G MC truck and focuse d solely on the alleg ed false statements. On J anuar y 28, 2005, Det. Snavely

took the title that Melanie had g iven to Office r Hill to the Richland (Ohio) County Clerk of Courts an dshowed it to three dif fer ent

e mpl oy e e s th e re . D e t. S nave ly a lle g e s th a t a ll thr e e e mpl oy e e s tol d hi m th at the tit le wa s v oid beca use it ha d been altere d and beca use the purcha se price and mileag e had not be en filled in. The alleg ed stateme nts by

these e mploy ees, how ever , do not comport with the offic ial policies and proce dures of

the Richland County

Clerk’s off

ice. The Richland County Clerk later

explained that any such statements wer e err oneous and should not have been made, and indicated in a n o ff i cial le tte r t o th e On tari o Ci ty

L aw D ir e c tor , date d F e br ua ry 21 , 20 06 , “ that our n or

ma l pr a c tic e is n ot t o question notary

information on titles as it is not our job to quest i on the purc hase pr ice, notar y information, or odomete r statements.” 11 Det. Snavely took no further action on the case until Mar ch 10, 2005. The B riners, how ever , continued their attempts to m ove the investigation a long. In response to Office r Hill’s reque st that they question F& W employ ees r eg ardingthe Dec ember 30 events, the B riner s p rovi ded the Depa rtment with the statements of three F& W employ ees (B ob My ers, Bob Buc kholdt, and Debr a Hissong) who indicated that L arr y had bee n at F& W on Decembe r 30 to pr ovide the title. Ms. Brine r ty ped the state ments, eac h employ ee signe d his or her statement, and the statements wer e notar ized. Mr. B riner took the statements to the police de partment on F ebrua ry 16 or 17 b u t t he De partment took no further

action at that time. Th e B ri ne rs a ir e d the ir c omp la int s r e g ard ingthe inv e sti g a tio ns , o r a pp are nt l a c k th e re of

, toI t a ppea r s t h at t h e ot h er t wo s t at eme n t s by F&W e mpl oy ee s w er e i g n or ed. 12 A s p re v io u sly n o te d , D e t. S n a v e ly, w h o a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n a ssig n e d to th e c a se , h a d a p rio r h isto ry w ith 13 the H isso n g fam ily. S u p ra a t __. 10 the May or . It is un c le ar whe the r t he B ri ne rs le ve le d a

ny c omp la int s d

ur in g t hei r J anuar

y 25 th interviews, so their pr otest to the mayor appe ars to be the ir second c omplaint about the police. No action was taken afte r their complaints to the Mayor, so on Marc h 10, 2005, Mr. Br i n er ca l l ed Service -Safe ty

Direc tor J im Hellinge r, who had supervisory authority over the Depa rtment. Chief McClare n was in Dire ctor He llinger ’s offic e at the time, so Direc tor Helling er put the call on spea ker phone. Dire ctor He llinger and Chief Mc Claren then lis t en ed as Mr. B riner inquire d about the investigation a

nd complained about the lack of prog ress a

nd the police in g ener al (includingChief McClara n). This telephone call constitutes at lea st the Br iners ’ t h i rd p u b lic complaint about the police. Direc tor Helling er the n asked Chief McClara n to respond, and Chief

McClara n said he

wo uld loo k into i t. After taking a look at the witness s t atements that the B riners ha d provided, e ither Chief McClara n or Det. Snavely told Of

fice r Hill to bring Debr a Hissong, one of the F &W employ ees who had provide d a stateme nt, into the s tation and question her a bout her stateme nt. When Ms. Hissong 12

wa s b ro u gh tt o t h e p o l i ce s t at i o n , Of fi ce r H i l l co n d

u ct edth e qu es t i o n i n g. 13 Th e re is s ome e vid e nc e to i nd ic a te that Ch ie f M c Cla ra n d id n ot i nte nd

the De partme nt t o pursue a n investigation into t he thef t of the GMC truc k , b u t rathe r to pursue the ir previous inv e sti g a tio n o f M s. B ri ne r f or fa lse state me nt s, to whi ch the y no w a dd e d a

n in qu ir y int o M s. H i s s o n g . A tM s . B r i n e r ’ s c r i m i n a l t r i a l , C h i e f M c C l ar ano f

f e r e d th e f o l l o w i n g t e s t i m o n y: Q. You wer e convinc ed that Mela nie B riner had n o t witnessed L arr y Paone sig n the title in f

ront of her at F& W on Decembe r 30th, 2004, befor e you broug ht Deb Hissongin on March 10th.11

[McCl ara n]. Correc t Mc Cla ra n T ri a l T e sti mony

a t 20 1. Th e ton e and

c on te nt o f t

he De pa rtme nt’ s q

ue sti on ingof

Ms. Hissong of

fer s further

evidentiar

y support for the B riners’ c o nte nti o n th a t C h ie f M c Cl are n responde d to complaints about his perfor mance , an dthe per formanc e of the Depa rtment, by

the B riners by fu rt he ri ngan inve sti g a tio n into t he ir a lle g e d c ri me s, rathe r t

ha n th e a lle g e d c ri me s a g a ins t th e m. Ms. Hissong ha d asser

ted in her swor

n statem ent that she ha d been in the F &W offic e on Dec ember

30, 2004, and had obse rved L arr y sign the title to the GMC truck in Ms. Br iner’s of fice

. Offic er H ill thought this was a fa lse statement. In questioning Ms. Hissong, Office r Hil l insist ed that he knew that L ar ry

had not bee n at F& W on Decembe r 30. Off icer Hill also showed Hissong the video in which Mela

nie B riner ha d said that no o ne had se en L arr y sign the title in her offic e. Finally , Offic er H ill, Chief McClara n, and perha

ps others thre atene d Ms. Hissong that she would be char g ed with a felony

for f iling this false state ment and the only way she could avoid prosecution was to re cant her st atement and acc use Melanie of wrongdoing

. The theory of the De partment a

nd its personne l appea

rs to be that, bec ause Ms. B riner ha d ty ped the state ment, she had f abric ated the sto ry and so lic ite d M s. Hi sso ngto s ig n it

. Eventual ly , M s . H is s o n g d id r e c an t h e r

s tate me n t a

n d in d ic a te d th a t M s . B r in e r

h a d a s k ed her to sig n the alleg edly

false statement. Shortly afte r leaving the police stati o n, she ca lled the Br iners and a sked to meet so that she could apolog ize, explain what had happe ned, and w arn the m reg ardingwhat she be lieved to be the D epar tment’s intentions reg arding Ms. Brine r. In her d ep o s i t i o nt es t i m o n y , M s . Br i n er re co un t edth e m ee t i n g: [Debra Hissong ] was visibl y upset and c rying, stated that [Office r Hill, Chief McCla r an , a n d p e r h a p s o th e r me mb e r s o f

th e O n ta r io p o li c e ] p r e tt

y mu c hto ld

h er they wer e, in her words, she said they wer e g iving L arr

y Paone an a libi and said they kn ew wh er e h e w as o nt h e 3 0 t h , s o s h e s ai d , I th o u gh t m ay b e I h ad th e da t e w ro n g,W hil e M s. B riner w as no t im m ed i ately ch arg ed w i t h a crim e, crim i na l ch arg es w ere ev en t ua l l y bro ug ht aga i nst 14 her an d, as des cr i bed b el ow, l at er di s mi s s ed wi t h pr ej udi ce. 12 and she sa id they

kept telling he r if she didn’t - - in her mind, if she didn’t chang e her statement, they would char g e her with falsification. They wer e openingup books and showing her thing s, telling he r stuff, a nd she wa s - - she w as ver y upset, Ithink.

. . . She stated that t hey took her back int o the chief ’s offic e and spoke with her there , and that they did show her some of the video that had bee n taken of me, and just very intimi dating , talking to he r, just kept saying ove r and ove r, we believe the stateme n t is f

a ls e , y o u k

n o w . I f y o u s ta

n d b y th is s tate me n t, y o u ar e g o in g to be ch ar ged with falsification. She said the chief ke pt patting he r on the kne e in the of fi c e saying , D e bb ie , th e tr uth wi ll s e t you

fr e e and sh e wa s ju st v e ry , v e ry

up se t. M. Br iner De po. at 68-69. This issue ca me up at Ms. B riner’ s criminal trial as we ll, and Chief 14 McClara n testified: Q. An d th at’ s w hy the e nd of the vid e ota

pe of [De br a Hi sso ng ’s ] state me nt s ho ws y ou

sta nd ingthe re wi th the Ont ari o o rd ina nc e s in y our hand saying, You’ve got a heck of a break here, y ou could be - - y ou could have been c harg ed with fa lsification, felony falsification. [ M c C l ar an ]

. I b e l i e v e i tw a s a m i s d e m e an o r , n o ta

f e l o n y. Q

. I k n o w i t ’ s a m i s d e m e an o r , b u tyo us a i d o nth e t a p e i tw a s a

f e l o n y. [McCl ara n]. That could be . Idon’t know. McClara n Trial Testimony at 205. At his de position in the case befor e the distr i ct co u rt , Chief Mc Cla ra n te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q. Rig ht. B ut i t w a s o nly afte r you me nti on e d th e po ssi bil ity of Ms. Hissong be ing pr osecute d that she cha ng ed her statement and a g ree d to m ake a ne w o ne , r ig ht? [Mc Cla ra n]. Ye s. McClara n Depo. at 94. Ms. Hi sso ngte sti fi e d at Ms . B ri ne r’ s c ri min al tr ial and ins ist e d, un de r o a th a

nd su bje c t to

cross-e x amination, that her or i g inal statement (that she had see n L arr y sign on D ece mber 30) ha dD et

. Snav el y t es t i f i ed at hi s depo s i t i on t hat he ha d s po ken wi t h ot her F& W emp l oy ees by t el ephone, t hat t hey 15 h a d a g re e d to giv e sta te m e n ts, b u t t h a t t h e y w e re un w ill ing to c o m e to the p o lice sta tio n to d o so . H e sta te d tha t he w o u ld no t go t o m eet t hem be cause he o nl y d o es i nt ervi ews at t he st at i o n. T hi s ap p ears t o be co nt radict ed by t he f act t hat he wen t t o M r . H amm ’ s home at t he out s et of t he ori gi nal bur gl ar y i nv es t i gat i on. I t al s o do es not ap pear t hat i t i s of f i ci al D epa r t m ent p o l i cy t o on l y c on du ct i n t er v i ew s a t t h e s t at i on , a s O f f i ce r H i l l r epe at edl y s pok e wi t h t h e Paon es by t el ephone i n conduct i ng hi s i nv es t i gat i on i nt o t he al l ege d r ob bery of t he G M C t r uck and M s . B r i ner ’ s al l ege d fal se st atem en t s. 13 been the truth and that she chang ed her story on Marc h 10 due to confusion and intimi dation by the Ontario police . Prior to Ms. Br iner’s criminal trial, Ms. Hissong ha d also met with former Assistant L aw Dir ector

Catherine B eil s tein and had r eca nted her statement to the police a nd rea ffirme d her

or ig ina l sw or

n s tate me nt. On Marc h 11, 2005, the same da y that Ms. H issong was que stioned and only one day afte r Mr . B ri ne r h a d c a lle d D ir e cto r H e lli ng e r t o c omp la in a bo ut C hie f M c Cla

ra n a nd the De pa rtme nt, Chief McClara

n sent a letter

to the Br iners, which stated: Marc h 11, 2005 Mr. Tom Br iner F & W Towing 16 16 W. F ourt

h St

. Mansfield, Ohio 44906 Ref.: Towingfor Onta

rio Police Depa

rtment Dea r Sir, As y ou are well awa

re of , the On t ar io Poli ce D epar tment is curre ntly

investigating the c ir c ums tanc e s su

rr ound ingthe c a se of a B re akin g and En te ri ng of y our b us ine ss on Dec ember

20, 2004. Offic er Snave ly has advised me that he has c ontacted or left numerous messag es for your employ ees to c ontact him and as of this date only

one ha s d on e so . At thi s p oint th a t c a se is n ot p ro g re ssi ngfo rw ard un til tho se [15] ind ivi du a ls c on ta c t O ff

ic e r S nave ly

fo r s tate me nts

. As to the investigation of the truck that you contend wa s st o l en fr o m y ou by L arr y Pa on e Sr , th is c a se is m ov ingfo rw ard . In th is c a se it a pp e ars that the re is s ome qu e sti on a ble c on du c t on

the pa rt of F&W Towi ngand

un til su c h ti me [as ] the se iss ue s are re so lve d I

am r e mov ingy ou

fr om t he tow ingc a ll o ut l ist

. Should y ou have a

ny questions fee l free to call me. Chief T.D. McClar anChi ef M cClar an t es t i f

i ed t h at a M an s f

i el d pol i ce of

f i ce r h ad t ol d h i m t h at F&W h ad t owe d 30 v eh i cl es f or 16 t hem, but wh en t hey wen t t o i nv ent ory t he veh i cl es , t hey coul d onl y l ocat e f i ve. 14 The purpose of this letter — as e vidence d by the “Ref .” line and Chief

McClara n’s deposition — was to i nf or m th e B ri ne rs tha

t the y ha d be e n re mov e d fr om the tow ing c a ll lis t. A t se ve ra l po int s in his deposition, Chief McClara n indicated that at least one of his r easons for his r emoving th e Briner s fro m th e to w in g li s t w a s h is ir r it a ti o n w it

h th e ir c o mp la ints a

b o u t an d c r it ic is m o f

the police depar tment, but elsewher e in his deposition he stated that he did not remove the m from the towing list for that rea son. Wi t h i n a short per iod of time, F& W rece ived similar notifications from other are a municipalities, with the result that F& W was removed from eve ry towing c all list i n the ar ea, a nd without that work (and w ith the cost of def endingMs. Brine r ag ainst criminal cha rg es), F& W went out of business. The B riners a lleg e that this occur red be cause Chief McClara n “beg an communicatingfalse a

nd defa matory statements about the B riners to other s in the are a business and law e nf or c e me nt c ir c le s. ” At

his de po sit ion , Ch ie f M c Cla ra n d e nie d th a t he ha d spr e a d suc h r umo rs , but said that he had he ard c omplaints a bout slow response times and missing vehicles. The B riners 16 dis pute thi s, ho wev er, and the re is n o d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g a c la im o f s low

re sp on se tim e s and ne ither F&W or anyon e wo rk ingthe re wa s e ve r c ha rg e d w iththe ft

of any a lle g e dly mis sin g ve hic le s. Al tho ug h Ch ie f M c Cla

ra n h a d in dic a te d th a t F & W wo uld be re mov e d f

ro m th e tow ingc a ll list unt il the questions surrounding “questionable conduct” by F& W were c lear ed up, it does not appe ar t h at an y

eff ort at cle aringup those questions was made , as it appea rs that the De partment

c e a se d a ll i nq

uir y int o a ny of the a lle g e d c ri me s a g a ins t th e B ri ne rs , o r i nto tho se a lle g e dly committed by them, following Chief M cClara n’s M arc h 11 letter. Det. S navely did not pursue a ny15

further investigation into the burglar y , he did not consult the prosecutor, and he did not char g e Mr. Hamm or a

ny one else with the crime. N either D et. Snavely nor Of fi ce r Hi l l pursued a

ny inv e sti g a tio n o f t

he tr uc k th e ft , ne ith e r c on su lte d the pr os e c uto r, and ne ith e r c ha rg e d L arr y or Da vid Paone with the thef

t of the truck. F inally , neither Chief McClara n n o r Off

icer Hill pursued any further investigation of t he allege d false statements by Ms. Brine r; they

did not interview her

or any other witnesse s, they

did not consult the prosecutor, a nd they did not char g e her with any crime. A s de sc ri be d b e low , ho we ve r, the inv e sti g a tio n into M s. B ri ne r’ s a lle g e d w ro ng do ingwa s e ve ntu a lly

re viv e d, a lle g e dly

a s a re su lt o f f

ur the r c omp la int s b y

the B ri ne rs a g a ins t th e de fe nd ants

. On April 1, 2005, the B riners sued L arr y and Dave P aone in Mansfield Municipal Court and, following a benc h trial, eve ntually rec overe d $5,475.85 for the unla wful conve rsion of the pick- up

and ano the r t he ft by L arr y . T he c ourt ma de , amo ng oth e rs , th e fo llo wi ngsp e c if ic fi nd ing s o f f

a c t: 14. L arr

y delivere d the title for the ‘ 93 [GMC pick-up truck ] t o [t he Br iners] on Dece mber 30, 2004. The Court finds that he did in fac t s i g nt h e t i t l e i nf

r o n to f M e l an i e B r i n e r , a

n o t ar y. 17. The Court fur

ther finds that ba sed upon an applicable law g overning leg al re possession of an a uto, neither L arr

y [n] or his fathe r had the leg al rig ht to retake possession of the ‘93 truc k using se lf help. 28

. B a se d up on the re le va nt e vid e nc e be fo re the Court and the c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s, the Court finds that the Def endant L arr

y Paone br e a c he d th e or a l c on tr a c t be tw e e n h e and the [B ri ne rs ]. L arry

did not h av e t h e right to attempt to resc ind the contra ct in part a s there had bee n full perf

ormanc e by

the [Briner s]. Th e [ Paone]s have not met their burde n of proof showing that the [ Br iners] brea ched the oral c o n t r a c ti nan y w ay. Mansfield Municipal Court Judgment, May 4, 2006. I n J une 2005, the B riners unde rtook an e ffor t to ge t a proposal on the N ovember ballot for a “Citizen’s Poli ce Re view B oard.” The B riners be g an cir culatingpetitions (dated June 30, 2005) and Mr. B riner place d a sign in his front y ard, stating“Vote f or the Police Review

Boa rd, we needI t i s un di s put ed t hat , f r om t hat poi nt on, M r . B r i ner cha ng ed t he s i gn s of t en, t oo of

t en f or a ny one t o re col l ect 17 w ith a n y sp e c ifi c ity w h a t t h e y sa id w h e n . It i s c o n c e d e d th a t th e y w e re c o n siste n tly c ritica l o f t h e C ity, the D e p a rtm e n t, a n d o ften C h ie f M c C la ra n , sp e c ifi c a lly.

In a d d iti o n to b e ing the L a w D ire c to r, R e b e c c a T h o m a s a lso h a d a p riv a te p ra c tice . O n e o f he r p riv a te c lien ts 18 wa s La r r y Paon e, wh om s h e h ad r epr es en t ed i n a ch i l d- s u ppor t pr oce edi n g . T h e B r i n er s a l l eg e t h at M s . T h omas , pe r h aps i n c oncer t wi t h Chi ef

M cCl ar an, s prea d a rumor t hat t he r eas on Lar r y P aone had been pros ecu t ed f or c hi l d s uppo r t was t h at , w h i l e La r r y w or k ed at F&W , t h e B r i n er s h ad wi t h h el d c h i l d- s u ppor t f r om h i s pa y ch ec k bu t h ad k ept i t f or t hem sel ves r at her t han gi vi ng i t t o Larry ’ s wi f e and chi l d ren. 16 honest police.” This act constitutes the Br iners’ fourth public complaint about the Depa rtment. Mr. B r i n e r a l s o p o s t e d

a “ F o r S a l e ” s i g no nth e F & W p r o p e rty. Be fore posting the signs, Tom Br iner consulted the zoning inspec tor, Dallas Strickler , and Mr. Strickler told him that they wer e permissibl e poli tical and rea l estate signs. A short time later — in la t e Jul y

or ea rly Aug ust — Mr. Br iner modified the political sig n by addingcontent to the other side, something to the effec t of “Ask the C hief about his past.” Mr. B riner did not consult Mr. Strickler about this modification. 17 Chief McClara

n perc eived this a s a persona l attack and called the C i t y ’s L aw Direc tor, Rebec ca T homas, and Mr. Strickler to make a c omplaint and to inquire about the le g ality of the 18 sign. Mr . Strickler appare ntly ag ree d with Chief McClara n that the modified portion of the sig n was not politi cal but wa s a per sonal comment about a particula r m em b er o f t h e police for ce ( i.e., McClara n). Mr. Strickler

telephoned Mr . Br iner a nd t o l d him to take it down, but Mr. Brine r

re fu se d. Mr . B ri ne r i ns ist e d th a t, b e c a us e Chi e f M c Cla

ra n w a s a pu bli c fi g ur e, he had a ri g ht t o criticize him. Mr. Br iner further modified the sign and, following additional complaints, still ref used to r e mov e it. Th e B ri ne rs re c e ive d a numb e r of ph on e c a lls and le tte rs fr om Mr . Stri c kle r, thr e a te nin g to ref er the matter to Ms. Thomas. Mr. B riner r es p o n d ed that he w as ac ting on the a dvice of the Am e ri c a n C i v i l L i b e rt i e s U n i o n ( “ A C LU ” ) , w h o h a d a dv i s e d h i m th a t h e w a s w i th i n h i s r i g h t s to17

po st t he sig ns . M r. Str ic kle r c e a se d h is atte mpt s to c omp e l Mr . B ri ne r t o ta ke do wn his signs on ly afte r M r. B riner pr ovided Mr. Strickler w ith a copy of the ACLU advisory

letter. Othe r member s of the De pa

rtme nt a lso ma de the ir

dis ple a sure a t th e B ri ne rs ’ signs kn own . Mr. B ri ne r, in h is deposition testimony , stated: Ihad cr uisers, Ontar io Poli ce cr u i s ers parked a cross the stre et for longperiods of time. I had them pull ing in be side us on the left side of the prope rty

setting [sic] for pe ri od s o f t ime . I

no tic e d th e same c ru ise rs g oin g up and do wn loo kin g a t th e signs , just a litt le bit of, form of intimidation, Ithink. T. Br iner De po. at 62-63. Whil e the a ctions by Mr. Strickler a

nd the Depa

rtment wer e insuffic ient to convince the Br iners’ to remove their si g ns, Mr. Briner stated that they “made my

wife ne rvous and thing s of that nature .” I n late August 2005, it was announce d that the Citiz en’s Police Revie w B oard pe tition had g ather ed enough signa t u re s t o b e put on t he Nove mber 2005 ba llot. Upon learningthat the issue would be plac ed on the ba llot, C hief McClar an we nt to clerk’s of fice to investigate: Question: After

y ou lear ned [that this i ssue would be placed on the ballot], di d y ou g o over to th e o ff ice of the cler k wher e those pe titions wer e and demand to see them an d take down the names of a ll the people who ha d sig ne d th os e pe tit ion s? Mc Cla ra n: Ig ot c op ie s o f t

he pe tit ion s. Question: You did that the first day th at y ou lear

ned they wer e in there, didn’t you? Mc Cla ra n: Ido n’ t r e c a ll w hat da y it w a s. Qu e sti on : An d w ho se of fi c e did y ou hav e to g o to to g e t th os e name s? McClara n: Clerk trea surer .

. . . Question: And what did you say to [to the cler k] when y ou went in there?18

Mc Cla ra n: As ke d h e r f

or c op ie s o f t

he m. Question: Did she provide the m to y ou? Mc Cla ra n: Ye s. Question: Was this duri n g the day time when their of

fice was open? Mc Cla ra n: Ye s. Qu es t i o n : An d

y o uwe re o nwo rky o urs el f? Yo uwe re wo rk i n g? Mc Cla ra n: Ye s. Qu e sti on : An d th is w a s o ff ic ia l po lic e bu sin e ss?

. . . Mc Cla ra n: No , it

wa sn ’t of fi c ia l po lic e bu sin e ss. Qu e sti on : Wel l, what w a s it ? Mc Cla ra n: Ig ue ss i t w ou ld b e pe rs on a l bu sin e ss. Question: What was y our purpose in going over the re? Mc Cla ra n: To g e t c op ie s o f t

he pe tit ion s. Question: Iunderstand. B ut why did y ou want to know the name s of the pe rs on s wh o a pp e are d on

th os e pe tit ion s?

. . . McClara n: I just wa

nted to see what signatures we re on the re a nd if they wer e valid. Question: Did y ou take those na mes bac k to y o u r o ff

ice at the po lic e de pa

rtme nt? McClara n: Itook them home. Q u e s ti o n : Did

y o ud o an y

th in g w it hth a t i n f o r mati o nth a t y ou c anr e m e mb e r

h e r e t o d ay? McClara n: No. McClara n Depo. at 38-41. I t is unclear f rom t h e re co rd whether any private c itiz en could have

arr ived at the cler

k’s office and immediately obtained copies of the pe titions , or whe ther McClar en’s position as the Chief of Police allowe d him acce ss to these documents for his personal use.I n h i s af f i davi t , pre pare d and s ubmi t t ed l at er , O f f i cer H i l l ave r r ed t hat D et

. Snav el y had do ne i t , but O f f i cer 19 H i l l did no t s p eci f

y when. 19 At this point , Chief McClara n appar ently

beg an to request that the prosec utor file fe lony

c ha rg e s a g a ins t Ms . B ri ne r, ba se d on he r state me nts c on c e rn ing L arr y Pa on e and the a lte ratio ns to the dates on the pick-up truc k title. The Ri chland Count y prosec uting attorney , Br ent R obinson, sent the following letter to Chief McClar an: Aug ust 18, 2005 Chief Timothy

McClara n Ontario Police De partment 555 Stumbo R oad Ontario, Ohio 44906 Re: Reque

st for charges on Melanie Brine r G.O. # 200500814 Dea r Chief McClar an: Per y o u r r e qu e s t thr o u g h O f f

. Ri le y Sn av e ly , I h av e ta k e n a s e c o nd look at felony char g es in the Melanie Br iner matter. Once ag ain, I have conclude d that her conduct doe s not rise to the level of a felony offe nse. Howeve r, I do believe she has c omm itt e d s ome mis de me ano r o ff e ns e s. I wo uld su g g e st you pr e se nt t he matte r t o the On tari o L aw D ir e c tor fo r p os sib le mis de me ano r c ha rg e s. I f you wo uld lik e to d isc us s th is m a tte r f ur the r, ple a se do no t he sit a te to c a ll me a t [ ]. S i n c e r e l y, Br ent N. Robinson Chief Criminal Assistant P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r

n e y. Mr. Robinson indicates that this was Chief M cClara n’s s econd r equest for

felony char g es, indicating that th e Chi e f h a d p re vio us ly inq uir e d a s to the po ssi bil ity

of br ing ingc ha

rg e s. Whe n ask e d at hi s deposition when he ha d previously reque sted felony

char g es ag ainst Ms. Brine r, Chief McClar an te st i f i e d t h a t h e d i dn ’ t kn o w w h e n i t w a s s u b m i t t e d th e f

i r s t t i m e , th a t O f

f i c e r H i l l h a d d on e it. Of fi c e r H ill , how e ve r, te sti fi e d th a t he did no su c h th ing

. In h is d e po sit ion te sti mony , O ff

ic e r H ill 1920

te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Question: After

the interview[or] meetingthat y ou and Chief McClar an had w ith Debbie Hissongthat day , what was the ne x t thing you did in reg ard to this matter? Off. H ill: Nothing until late August, Ithink, of 2005. Question: So y ou’re involved on J anuar y 25th and 26th, then y ou do n’ t he ar muc h a

bo ut it unti l Ma

rc h 9 th a nd 10 th [i .e., Hissonginterrog ation], and y ou have this work y ou’ve just desc rib ed for us. Then you don’t hea r about it ag ain until roug hly August; is t hat fa ir? Of f. Hi ll: Ye s. Qu e sti on : What w a s th e nex t c on ta c t th a t you ha d w iththi s d i s p u t e a ft er

M s . Hi s s o n g? Off. Hill: Chief McClara n contac ted me when I arr ived at work one day and told me that he ha d spoken t o t he law dir e c tor and that sh e ha d re vie we d th e c a se and tha t I was to cha

rg e [Ms. Briner ] w i t h falsification, ta mpe ri ng wi th records , and c omp lic ity to falsification. Question: This was some date in Aug ust, but y ou couldn’t tell us

exactly when; is that fair ? Off. H ill: The 22nd or 23r d, Ibelieve. Question: Ver

y g ood. Of f. Hi ll: L a te Au g us t. Q u e s ti o n : A s b e s t yo uc anr e me mb e r , w a s thi s th e v e r y n e xt time th e c h ie f

h a d ta lk e d to y o ua b o u t t h is B r iner d i s p u t e wi t h t h e P ao n es af t er y o u ’dh ady o ur m ee t i n gs wi t hDe b raHi s s o n g? Of f. Hi ll: Ye s. Question: And y ou don’t rec all any other discussions in betwe en

there until Aug ust 22nd or 23rd betwe en you and the chief ? Off. H ill: No. Hill Depo. at 17.21

De t. S nave ly

te sti fi e d th a t, a c c or din g to n or ma l p rot oco ls, he wo uld

have be e n th e on e to submit charg es to the prose cutor, and there is some evidenc e to indicate that De t. Snavely was the ind ivi du a l w ho did so , but he did no t off e r any date s as to whe n this wa s don e . It is un c le ar why De t. Snavely would file the reque st f or felony char g es when he did not conduct the interview , prepa re the

c a se , o r t e sti fy . In th e e nd , it wa s O ff ic e r H ill wh o f

ile d th e re qu e st f

or mis de me ano r c ha

rg e s. On or a bout Aug ust 22 or 23, 2005, the city law dire ctor filed thr ee misdemeanor c harg es

a g a ins t Me lanie B ri ne r: (1 ) t ampe ri ngwi th r e c or ds , ( 2) fa lsi fi c a tio n, and (3 ) c omp lic ity

to c omm it falsif i ca t i o n . Offic er H ill testi fied that these char g es we re f iled with the expli cit knowledg e and approva l of Chief McClara n: Of f. Hi l l : I ’m n o t t h e o n e th at d ec i d ed we we re go i n g t o ch ar ge

any body with any thing. I wa s order ed to do so by [C hief] McClaran. Question: May

be I ’m making an assumpti on here

. You did not make a probable cause deter mination on these char g es independe ntly , did y ou? Off. H ill: No. Hi ll D e po . at 21 . M s. B ri ne r e nte re d a “ no t guil ty” ple a

and pr e pa re d f or tr ia l. I n November

2005, while Ms. B riner was awa iting trial, the Citi zen’s Police Review B oard initiative came up f

or a vote and the citizens of Ontario voted it down. But, the petition did prompt

an e xter na l a ud it o f t he po lic e de pa

rtme nt a nd a re po rt date d N ov e mbe r 2 00 5, wh ic h in c lud e d s ome interestingfinding s. For e x ample: “I t is also recommende d that the C ity examine why employ ees are not more willing to take their conce rns to the chief

. The chief

’s attitude and manag ement sty le see m to be a c onsistent complaint.” Employ ee Re lations Audit Report at 8. “[A]l most every

employ ee of

the depa rtment commented tha

t discipl i n e i s not handled fai rly

or consistently

amongemploy ees. The perc eption is [ that] whether y ou are disciplined [or not] depends on who y ou are , y our r el at i o n s h ip to the c omm and sta ff , a nd the moo d o f t

he c hie f o n th a t pa

rt ic ula r d ay . B oth

c on su lta ntsIn f act , t he reco rd re v e a ls th a t C h ie f M cC l aran was s t i l l t he chi ef as o f June 2 8 , 20 0 6 , when he sent t he 20 f o l l o w i ng em ail t o M r. S t rickler an d M s. T ho m as: “I a rr ive d a t wo rk this a m a n d w a s a d v ise d tha t B rin e r h a d a ne w ly wo rd e d sign a n d w a s p ro v id e d w ith a p i c t u r e . T h e w o r d i n g i s ‘ T O T H E C I T Y O F O N T A R I O I A M WI L L I N G T O D I E F O R MY FR E E D O M O F SP E E C H AR E Y O U W I LLIN G T O D I E T O T A K E I T AW A Y ’

. I hav e been advi s ed b y e m p lo ye e s tha t t h e y a re c o n c e rn e d fo r th e m a n d the ir fam ili e s if the y sh o u ld h a v e a n y c o n ta c t with B ri ners . I al so have co ncerns f o r t he saf

et y o f m y famil y . I be l i eve t hi s i s a d i rect t hreat f o r any o ne w h o w o rk s fo r th e c ity. P le a se a d d re ss th is situa tio n a s so o n a s p o ssib le .” A ccor di ng t o t he C i t y of O nt ar i o’ s webs i t e, M cCl ar an i s no l onger t he chi ef of pol i ce. 22 found the e mploy ees to be satisfied with the di scipline of t he command staff, but the majority [of employ ees] fee l the chief is out of control.” Id. at 11.

“ Many of the e mpl oy e e s f

e lt that th e c hie f d oe s e very th ingpo ssi ble to m ake the ir jobs miser able and to keep the Ma y or and [S] ervic e-[S] afe ty [D] irec tor in the dark . . . . When asked to provide sug g estions on how communi cation mig ht be improved, the majority

of the e mploy ees c onvey ed that the only way comm u n i ca tions can be improv ed within the depar tment is by

eliminating the intimidating atmosphere cre ated by

the chief .” Id. at 13. “The majority

of re sponses (eve ry

body but one) r ecommended re moving the c hief from employ

ment.” Id. at 14. I t is noteworthy that Chief M cClara n himself participated in the survey . I t was re ported that Chief McClara n was ter minated as a

result of this re port, but the rec ord reve als that he was still the chief

a s o f M arc h 2 00 6 w he n h e te sti fi e d at Me lanie B ri ne r’ s tr ia l. 20 Sometime prior to Ms. Briner ’s trial, the p ro s ec u tor moved to dismiss t he cha rg es of “tamper ing w ith recor ds” and “ falsification” and the Municipal Court g rante d the motion. The trial pr oc e e de d, the re fo re , o n o nly on e c ha rg e : “ c omp lic ity to co mmi t fa lsi fi c a tio n, ” ba se d o n th e c la im that s h e h a d s o li c it e d M s . H is s o n g to ma

k e a f a ls e s tate me n t. T h e p r o s e c u ti o np r o d u c e d thr ee witnesses: Chief McClara n, Offic er H ill, and Ms. Hissong. While under oath, Ms. Hissong re cante d her “confe ssion,” insisted that her origina l statement had been tr ue, and te stified that Melanie ha d not solicited any

false statement. At the conc lusion of the prosec ution’s case , the def ense move d for acquittal or, in the alternative, dismiss al on the basis that the criminal complaint did not specify theT he B ri ners a l so nam ed O nt ari o P o l i ce S argent R i chard B evi er and S af et y - Se rvi ce D i rect o r Cha rl es Au, b ut 21 sub seq ue ntl y dism i ssed t he se two d efen d an t s.

T he B ri ners s ub sequentl y wi t hd rew t he i nt ent i o nal i nf l i ct i o n of em o t i o nal d i st res s cl ai m , co nced ed t hat t he 22 Ci t y w as i mmun e u n der s t at e l aw , a n d c on ce ded t h at t h e s t at e def ama t i on c l ai m wa s t i me bar r ed. 23 e le me nts of

the of fe ns e or the c on du c t sh e ha d a lle g e dly c omm itt e d th a t w ou ld s a tis fy tho se elements. The court a g ree d and dismissed the cha rg e on May

5, 2006. Sometime in early

2006, the Br iners had begun to complain about the police de partment at the City Council meeting s. These complaints constitute at least their fifth public c omplaint about Chief McClara

n, the Depa

rtment, and the City

. At a City Council me eting on Marc h 2, 2006, Mr. B ri ne r m a de a

state me nt c ri tic a l of

Chi e f M c Cla

ra n, Ms. Th oma s, Of

fi c e r H ill , an d sev e ra l othe r C ity of fi c ia ls a nd po lic e of fi c e rs . At a City Council meeting on May

18, 2006 — the first C ity Council meetingafte r the c ourt ha d d ism iss e d th e c ha

rg e s a g a ins t Ms . B riner on Ma y 5, 20 06 — M s. B ri ne r a dd re sse d th e City Council. She was v er y cr i t i cal of the police de partment a nd various other

city officia ls and complained a

bout the fac t that char g es had be en brought ag ainst her. The Council president

e xpla ine d th a t th e se we re no t matte rs the Counc il w ou ld a dd re ss. The Briner s filed t he present l awsuit on J anuar y 17, 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various st at e- l aw ca uses of a ction. They named the City , Chief McClara n, Det. Snavely , Offic er Hill, and Z oning I

nspector Strickler. Their fede ral claims included: F irst Amendment re taliation; 21

m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ; t ak i n g s an d d e n i a l o f

d u e p r o c e s s ; c o n s p i r a c y; mun i c i p a l l i a b i l i ty; de fa matio n; F ir st A me ndme nt a br idg me nt o f f

re e sp e e c h; a

nd denia l of e qu a l pr ote c tio n ( wi th respe ct to their y ard sig ns). Their state claims included: malicious prose cution; intentional infliction of e mot ion a l di str e ss; c ivi l c on sp ir a c y ; de fa matio n, inv a sio n o f p ri va c y ; to rt iou s in te rf e re nc e wi th

c on tr a c ts; and

tor tio us int e rf

e re nc e wi th b us ine ss i nte re sts

. 22N o t ab l y , de f end ant s never f

i l ed a m o t i o n f

o r a mo re defi ni t i ve st at em ent , pursuant t o F ed

. R

. C i v. P

. 12 (e), 23 t he ap p rop ri at e m eans by whi ch t o ob t ai n m o re s p eci f i ci t y wi t h regard t o plai nt i f f s’ c l ai m s. I t t heref

o re app ears t hat t he di s t r i ct c ou r t di s mi s s ed Cl ai m 6 su a sp o n te
. 24 Mr . B ri ne r a

tte mpt e d to a dd

re ss the Counc il a t the F e br ua ry 1, 20 07 , me e tin g , b ut w a s to ld by th e C o u ncil president that he could not speak a bout the pendinglitigation. When Mr. B riner

c o n t i nu e d t o d o s o , t h e p r e s i d e n tf

o u n d h i mo u to f

o r d e r an d h a d h i mr e m o v e d

f r o mth e r o o mb y a po lic e of fi c e r. At the ne xt a

va ila ble op po rt

un ity , the F e br

ua ry 15 , 2 00 7, me e tin g , b oth Mr . a nd Ms. B ri ne r a dd

re sse d th e Counc il w ithre sp e c t to the same c omp la int s. I n their fe dera l complaint, t h e Br i n er s alleg e that, due to their complaints about the police depar tment and their attempts to speak out about their complaints in public, the def endants e ntere d into a sustained patter

n of re taliation that resulted in fa lse cha rg es beingfiled ag ainst Ms. Brine r, the destruction of the ir towing business (which they wer e for ced to c l o s e on April 21, 2006), and signific ant business and pe rsonal losses, including medical damag es, public hum iliation, and leg al fe e s. Both sides moved f or summary

judgme nt and in so doing, submitted numerous c ompeting motions. Ult imately , the district court de nied the B riners’ motions and gr anted summary judgme nt to a ll d e fe nd ants on

a ll c la ims , a lbe it i n tw o s e pa ra te or de rs . I n th e fi rs t or de r, the dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

ju dgme nt t o d e fe nd ants on ne arl y a ll counts. After a 10-pag e rec itation of fac ts a nd stating the standard for summary judgme nt , the

o p i n i o nb egi n s wi t ha l en gt h y cr i t i ci s m o f th e Bri n er s ’ c o mp l ai n tan d co n cl u d es wi tht h e f

o l l o wi n g:

“ I n v ie w o f P lai ntif

fs ’ f a ilure to p le a d Cl a im 6 [fe de ra l de fa matio n] w ithany

sp e c if ic ity de sp ite havingfiled an amende d complaint, the Court here by DI SMI SSES Claim 6.” Mem. Op., April 16, 23 2008, at 16.25

Th e c ourt the n c on ducte d a cla im- by -c la im a na ly sis , b e g inn ingwi th t he c la im o f F ir st Amendment re taliation. The B riners ha d identified five s epar ate incide nts of reta liation, and the court re jected a ll but the first. A s to the first (the c laim that Chief McClara n had re moved them from the towing list in reta liation for their c omplaining a bout the police depa

rtment), the c ourt relied on Chief M cC lara

n’s conf licting state ments on this question during his previous trial testimony and during deposition — at one point Chief McClara n stated that he had remove d F& W from the towing list because of

the B riners’ criticism and e l s ew h er e h e stated that he had not . B a se d o n th is conflictingtestimony , the cour t denied summary

judgme n t o n t h i s issue. The c ourt reje cted the claims based on the four other alleg ed incidents, fur

ther a ddressingat least two of t hem elsewhere in the opinion. Next, the court g rante d su m m ary judgme nt to the defe ndants on the B riners’ claim of malicious prosec ution. The court e x plained that proba ble ca use to bringthe cha

rge s d ef eats any claim of malicious prose cution, and found that “there is plenty of undisputed evidenc e in the re cord to establish probable c ause” for br ingingthe cha rg es ag ainst Ms. Brine r. Id. at 23. The distri ct court gr anted summary judgme nt to the defe ndants on the taking s claim by finding that the B riners had no entitlement to being on the towing list. The district court g rante d the de fe nd ants summa

ry jud g me nt o n th e c on sp ir a c y c la im by fi nd ingthat Ch ie f M c Cla ra n w a s so le ly responsible for

any harm, a nd could not have c onspired with himself. Relying on its e arlier denial of summary judgme nt on the single First Amendme nt retaliation cl aim , the cour

t denied summary

judgme nt on the municipal liability claim. The c ourt found that if Chi e f M c Cla

ra n w a s li a ble , th e n th e City

wa s li a ble a s w e ll. The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt to the def

endants on the B riners’ claim that they wer e denie d the rig ht to speak at public mee tings, findingthat Mr. Br iner wa s not denied the26

ri gh tt o s p ea k

b ec au s e h e w as n o t“p re v en t edfr o mm ak i n g ap pr op ria te publ i c co m ments.” Id. at 29 (empha sis in original). T he cour t gra n t ed summary

judgme nt to the defe ndants on the equa l pr ote c tio n c la im b y

fi nd ingthat th e B ri ne rs we re ne ve r f or c e d to take do wn

the ir sig ns . Finally , the district court de clined jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), whic h states: “The district c ourts may decline to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over

a cl ai m u n d er subsection (a) if. . . the district court ha s dismis sed all c la im s o v e r w h ic h it has orig inal jurisdiction” (empha sis added). B eca use the district cour

t had denied the g rant of summar y judgme nt on one claim of F irst Amendment retaliation and the municipal liability claim, there y et

rema ined claims over

which the district cour

t retaine d orig inal jurisdiction. Chief McClara

n and the City

moved the cour

t to reconsider

its decision, arguing that the court had misunderstood the chronolog y of events. Chief McClara n and the City argued t hat McClara n had re moved the B riners f rom the towing list in Marc h 2005, but that the Briners had not posted the first of the critica l y ard signs until June 2005. There fore , acc ording to Chief McClara n and the City , the Br iner’s criticisms could not ha ve motivated McClara

n’s decision to remove them from the towinglist because the public criticisms did not occur until after the r emoval. The district

cou rt ag ree d, g rante d rec onsideration, and grante d summary judgme nt to Chi ef Mc Claran a nd the City , thus finalizi ng the ca se. The district cour

t, in its opinion, disre g arde d the Br iners’ c laims of reta liation, assertingthat “¶62 of the First Amended Complaint .

. . simply makes no ref ere nce to a

ny of these instanc es as the basis for the [F]irst [ A]mendment retali at i o n claim.” Mem. Op., May 2, 2008, at 6. The district

c ourt a lso state d th a t th e B ri ne rs a lle g e that th e y we re re mov e d f

ro m th e City ’s tow inglis t “ be c a us e they posted y ard sig ns critical of [C hief] McClaran.” Id. a t 7. Th e te xt of pa ra g ra ph62 sa y s: F I RST CLAI M - RET AL I AT OR Y C ON DU CT27 62 . T he sa id a c ts by the D e fe nd ants , in c lud ingthe dr op pin g of Pla int if fs ’ business from the towinglist, an d the vindictive prosec ution of Melanie B riner, c on sti tut e d unl awf

ul r e ta liatio n, mot ivate d at le a st i n p art by an inte nti on

to dis c oura g e and

punis h th e Plain tiff

s f or e xer c isi ngthe ir

c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts , inc lud ingthe ri g ht t o c ri tic ize the po lice . Su c h r e ta liatio n v iol a te s th e F ir st Amendment to the United States Constituti on, and 42 U.S.C. §1983. First Am. C ompl. at ¶ 62. As discussed above, there wer e a number of disti nct occ asions wher e the Br iners could be seen a s criticizing the police, including: the B riners’ complaints to Chief McClaran about the Ha

mm investigation (¶ 15), the Br iners’ complaints to the City (e.g ., the Mayor) a bout the police (¶ 34); and Mr. B riner’ s complaint to Director J im Hellinge r about the Paone investigation (¶ 3 4 ). More over, the Br iners alleg ed multiple acts of r etaliation by Chief McClara

n and other de fe nd ants , n ot s imp ly

be ingtake n o ff

the City ’s tow inglis t. The district c ourt also sug g ested that the Br iners’s complaints about the police mi gh t not

even c onstitut e the ty

pe of spe ech that is protected by the Fir st Am en d m en t

. Mem. Op., May 2, 2 0 0 8 , at 8 n . 5 (c i t i n g He lm s v . Zu ba ty , 495 F.3d 252, 256- 57 (6th Cir. 2007), for the proposition that “eve ry v erb al co m p l aint made to a g overnme nt official doe s not rise to the level of pr otected speec h”). The court did not cite Ho us ton v . H ill , 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (“ contra ry to the city ’s

co ntention, the First Amendme nt protects a sig nificant a mount of verba l criticism and cha ll en ge direc ted at police of

fice rs”) , even thoug h the B riners c ited it severa l times in t heir brie fs on summary jud g me nt. The B riners a

ppeale d almost the entirety of the district cour

t’s ruling , raising 13 er

rors for revie w. We have c onsolidated these claims wher e possible (e .g ., claims that the district court e rre d by denying the Br iners’ motion for summary judgme nt a nd by g rantingthe def

endants’ motion for summary judgme nt as to the same c laim are combined this into a single c laim of err or). AN AL YSI S28

This co u rt conducts a de novo revie w of the grant of summar y judgme nt. W

alton v . F or d Motor Co. , 4 24 F .3 d 481 , 4 85 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . Summa ry jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate “ if

the ple a din g s, d e p o s i t i o n s , an s w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , an d

a dm i s s i o n s o nf

i l e , t o g e th e r

w i thth e a f

f i d av i t s , i f an y, sh ow t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e nu i n e i s s u e a s t o an y m a t e r i a l f a c t an d th a t th e m o v i n g p arty is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U. S

. 3 17, 325 (1986). “The evidence of t he non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable infere nces a re to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc ., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The B riners sue d the def

endants in both their i ndividual and their of ficial c apac ities. “In an officia l capa city

action, the plaintiff se eks dama g es not from the individual officer , but from the enti ty for whic h the offic er is an a g ent.” Pu se yv . Ci ty of You ng sto wn , 1 1 F

. 3 d

6 5 2 , 6 5 7 ( 6 th

Ci r. 19 93 ). “ [A]n of

fi c ia l c a pa c ity su it i s, in a ll r e sp e c ts o the r t ha n n ame , to be tr e a te d a s a

su it a g a ins t the entity .” Kentucky

v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). B ut, it also bears mention that Section 1983 does not permit a plaintiff to sue a loca l gove rnmen t entity on the theory

of respondeat superior

. Mo ne ll v . Ne w York City De p't o f So c . S e rv s. , 436 U.S. 658, 692-94 (1978). Aplaintiff may hold a local g overnme nt entity liable under

§ 1983 only for the entity ’s own wrong doing. Id

. A l oc a l g ov e rnme nt e nti ty vio late s § 19 83 whe re its o ff ic ia l po lic y

or c us tom a c tua lly se rv e s to deprive an individual of his or her const itutional rights. Id . This is a distinction t he district cour t

may ne e d to a dd

re ss on re mand , with re g ard to the re ma ini ng de fe nd ants and the pa rt ic ula r c la ims

. After car eful re view of the rec ord, we conclude that this case must be remande d to the district

c ourt . A s il lus tr a te d b y

the “ br ie f” summa

ry of fa c ts s e t f

or th ab ov e , th e fa c tua l r e c or d in thi s c a se is not insubs tantial. That fa ctual re cord, upon a motion for summary judgme nt, must be construe d in the light most favor able to the non-moving party , a som etimes difficult t ask whe n both sides have

mov e d th e c ourt

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Th e summa

ry of fa c ts util ize d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt

in i ts29

op ini on , ta

ke n in iso latio n, mig ht be se e n as suf fi c ie nt to aw ard summa

ry jud g me nt, but pl a c e d in the context of the larg er r ecor d amassed in this ca se, we cannot c onclu d e t h at t he district cour t

a pp ro pr iate ly

c on sid e re d a ll f

a c ts i n th e lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ing pa

rt y . Whil e no t a compre hensive list of all fac tual disputes that prec lude summary judgme nt, w e offe r the following

ana ly sis a s an a id t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt in p ro c e e din g to t

ri a l. 1. F ir stAm e ndm e ntRe ta lia ti on C lai m Th e B ri ne rs state d f

ive se pa ra te e xamp le s o r i ns tanc e s o f r e ta liati on in th e ir br ie f i n opposition t o Chief McClar an ’s m o t i on for summary judgme nt on this particular c laim: first, the B ri ne rs a lle g e that Ch ie f M c Cla ra n a nd the De pa rtme nt r e fu se d to inve sti g a te the the ft of the GM C tr uc k in re ta liatio n for c omp la int s r e g ard ingthe De pa rtme nt’ s a lle g e d f

a ilure to p ro pe rl y

inv e sti g a te the F & W b u r g l ar

y ; s e c o n d , t h e B r i n e r s a l l e g e th a t C h i e f M c C l ar an r e m o v e d F & W f r o m th e City tow-list in reta liation for Mr. B riner’ s complaints to Director H ellinge r; third, the B riners a lleg e that Chief McClara

n and the Depa

rtment broug ht criminal charg es aga inst Ms. Br iner in retaliation for the ir Pol ic e Re vie w B oa

rd pr op os a l; fo ur

th, the B ri ne rs a lle g e that th e y we re su bje c t to le g a l thre a ts and h ar as s ment in retaliation for their lawn sig ns; and fifth, the B riners a lleg e that they wer e pr oh ibi te d f

ro m sp e akin g duri ng City Counc il mee tin g s in re ta liatio n for fi lin g the pr e se nt l aws uit

.

“ To pr e va il o n [a ] re ta liatio n c la im, [p]la int if fs mus t e sta

bli sh (i ) that th e y

we re e ng a g e d in constitutionally

protec ted conduc t; (ii) that Defe ndants’ adve rse ac t i o n caused them to suffer an injury that would likely

chill a per son of ordinar y firmness fr om continuing t o en gage i n that

c on du c t; a

nd (i ii) that th e a dv e rs e a c tio n w a s mo tiv a te d at le a st i n p art a s a re sp on se to t

he e xer c ise of their c onstitut ional rig hts.” Luc as v . M on ro e Cou nty , 203 F.3d 964, 973 ( 6th Cir. 2000). Th e B ri ne rs c la im that th eir c on du c t in

a ll f ive e xamp le s ( c ri tic ism

of the po lic e ) i s constitutionally

protec ted spee ch. See Houston , 482 U.S. at 461 (“c ontrary to the city ’s contention,30

the Fir st Amendment protec ts a signif icant amount of ve rbal c ri ticism and challeng e dire cted at po lic e of fi c e rs ” ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt appea rs to h ave fa ile d to c on sid e r t he imp or t of the Sup re me Court’s holding in Houston in rea chingits conclusion, but there is s ufficie nt evidenc e to permit the conclusion that the B riners’ criticisms of the police w ere protec ted under Houston . Upon re mand, there fore , the di strict court must rec onsider whe ther the B riners’ conduct mee ts the require ments for protec ted spee ch. With reg ard

to t he se c on d a

nd thi rd e le me nts of

the B ri ne rs ’ r e ta liatio n c la ims , th e re is sufficie nt evidence , when view ed in the lig ht most favorable to the Br iners, to pre clude summary judgme nt. For e ach of

the B riners’ five claims, there is suf ficient evidenc e to suppor t a finding of injury which would likely

chill further

criticism of public off

icials. Ther e is also suffic ient evidenc e to support a finding that Appellee ’s ac tions were motivated, at l ea s t in part, in retaliation for the Br iners’ c riticisms. As but one example, wh en the B riners r eporte d the theft of the ir GMC truck, the y we re inf or me d th a t it wa sn ’t a the ft , b ut t hat th e ri g htf

ul o wn e r h a d ta

ke n b a c k p os se ssi on . T his

wa s do ne a t the c omm and of Chi e f Mc Cla ra n, wh o a dmi tte d he wa s ann oy e d by th e Brin ers ’ criticisms, even thoug h the Paones admitted that they wer e taking back a truck ba sed on a c ontrac t dis pute , a nd no t ba se d o n w ho ha d a

va lid le g a l cla im t o p os se ssi on . O ff ic e r H ill a lso te sti fi e d th a t, wh e n th e B ri ne rs arr ive d to g ive the ir state ment , h e vid e ota

pe d th e ir state me nt w ith out th e ir knowledg e, and that he knew about the Br iners’ previous complaints about fellow office rs, ca lling the complaints false or unfa ir. His actions in conduc ting the inve stigation could also be interpr eted as investig ating the B riners, r ather than the Paones, who admitted to taking the truck in question. This e vidence indicates a g enuine issue of materia l f act reg arding the Br iners’ first claim for First Amendme nt r etaliation. The Br iners’ second through fourth cla ims are similarly supported by sufficie nt evidence to c reate a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t, as a re asonable jury could conc lude thatW e not e t hat C hi ef M cCl ar an appear s t o hav e a dm i t t ed, un der oat h, t hat he r emo ved t he F& W f r om t he t ow- 24 l i st i n ret al i at i o n f

o r t hei r com p l ai nt s t o D i rect o r H el l i nger. 31 the c onti nu ed com pla int s b y the B ri ne rs le d to re ta liator y re mov a l f

ro m th e City

tow -l ist , 24 p r o s e c u ti o n o f M s . B r in e r f o r h e r a ll e g e d ly f

a ls e s tate me n ts , an d a ll e g e d thr e a ts an d hara ssment reg arding the Briners’ lawn sig ns. Wi th reg ard to the f ourth claim, the district cour t held that there was no injury

beca use the Briner s wer e never required to remove their sig ns. That deter mination, howeve r, fa ils to take into acc ount the evidence presented that the Br iners suff ere d some amount of fea r, intimidation, and anx iety as a r esult of the alleg ed leg al threats and hara ssment. See B loch , 156 F.3d at 679 (“th e S u p re m e Court has held that, in the conte x t of a § 1983 a ction, ‘compe nsatory damag es may

include . . . such injuries a s ‘impairment of reputation

. . ., persona l humili ation, and

m en t al an gu i s han d

s u ff er i n g. ’” ) ( qu o t i n g Me mp his Com m. Sc h. Di st. v . S tac hu ra , 477 U.S. 299, 307 (1986), a nd Gertz v. Robe rt W

elch, I nc. , 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974))

. The ex istence of g enuine issues of mate ri a l f

a c t on the se c la ims pr e c lud e s summa ry jud g me nt f

or e ith er p art

y on the B ri ne rs ’ f

ir st throug h fourth First Amendment re taliation claims. The district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt is rever sed. B eca

use this is a jury question, the district court’s de nial of summary judgme nt to the Br iners is aff

irmed. On the fifth r etaliation claim, the Briner s produce d sufficie nt evidence to defe at summary judgme nt on the question of whether Mr. Br iner’s speec h at the City Council me eting was prote cted, but there is insuffic ient ev i d en ce t o create a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t on whether the City ’s

a c tio ns c on sti tut e re ta liatio n. We w ill the re fo re a ff ir m summa ry jud g me nt fo r A

pp e lle e s o n th e fi ft

h

re ta liatio n c la im. 2. Malicious Pr osecution

“ [T]hi s [c]o ur

t ha s y e t to re so lve the e le me nts of a fe de ra l ma lic iou s p ro se c uti on c la im, [but ]32

it i s c le ar that a pla int if

f mus t show , at a mini mum , that th e re wa s n o p ro ba ble c a us e to j us tif

y his

arr est and prose cution.” Barnes v. W right , 449 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir. 2006) (citations, quotation marks, and e ditorial marks omitted). The O hio law on malicious prosec ution “re quires proof of three essential ele ments: (1) malice in insti tuting or c ontinuing the pr osecution, (2) lack of proba ble ca use, and (3) termination of the prosec ution in favor of the a ccuse d.” Froehlich v. O hio Dept. of Mental He alt h , 871 N.E.2d 1159, 1162 (Ohio 2007) . And, the Ohio Supreme Court has clar ified: 1. I n an ac tion for malicious prosec ution, the want of proba ble ca use is the g ist of the ac tion. I f such be proven, t he leg al infer ence may be dra wn that the proce eding s were actuated by malice. 2. I n deter

mining the wa

nt of probable cause , the de fe n d an t ’s conduct should be weig hed i n v i ew of his situation and of the fa cts and c ircumstance s which he knew or was re asonably

char g eable with knowing at the time he mad e the c ri min a l c omp la int

. Hu be r v . O ’N

e ill , 4 1 9 N. E

. 2 d

1 0 , 1 1 -1 2 (O h i o 1 9 8 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Melanowski v. J udy , 131 N.E. 360, sy llabus (1921)). T he sec ond provision is critical to this case. A. Malice Vi e wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he B ri ne rs , we fi nd

that th e re is suf f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o rt a ju r y f in d in g o f ma li c e an d r a is e a g e nuine issue of materia l fac t. Among othe r thing s, Chief McClara n admitted that he wa s annoy ed with the B riners fo r t he ir c ri tic ism (a nd vo ic e d a will ingne ss to pun ish the m for it)

. De t. S nave ly and Of fi c e r H ill a lso testified that t hey wer e offended. Fr om the evidence, a jury could also conclude that this il l-will led to the prosec ution, as a jury could reasonably conclude that the intense foc us on possible falsehoods by Ms. B ri ne r i ns te a d o f i nv e sti g a tin g the B ri ne rs ’ c omp la int regardingthe a lle g e d th e ft of the ir GM C tr uc k illu str a te s a des ir e to fi nd so me wa y to p un ish he r f or he r a nd he r h us ba nd ’s c omp la int s. A r e a so na ble jur y c ou ld a lso int e rp re t th e de c isi on to re ins tate the inv e sti g a tio n of Ms. B ri ne r s ho rt ly33

afte r the B riners’ ballot proposal succ eede d in ge tting on the ba llot as being motivated by malice. B. Term inati on of the Prosecution in Favor of the Accused The city law direc tor orig inally filed three misdemeanor char g es ag ainst Melanie Briner: “tamper ing with r ecor ds,” “fa lsification,” and “complicity to commit falsification.” The prosec utor dismiss ed the first two char g es prior to tr ial and they wer e never re- filed. The c ourt dismissed the third char g e at the c lose of the pr osecution’s c ase, a point at which jeopar dy

had attac hed. Despite the de fenda

nts’ sug g estions to the contrar y , it is cl ear that this prosecution was te rm inate d in

fa vo r o f M e lanie B ri ne r. Th e B ri ne rs have c le arl y me t th is e le me nt. C. P ro ba ble Caus e The Ohio Supreme Court expl ained that “ the want of probable cause is the g ist of the action,”

and “ [i]n d e te rm in ing the wa nt o f p ro ba

ble c a us e , th e de fe nd ant’ s c on du c t sh ou ld b e we ig he d in vie w of his sit

uatio n an d of the fa c ts an d c ir c ums tanc e s w hic h h e kn e w o r w a s r e a so na bly c ha rg e a ble with know ing at the time he made the criminal complaint.” Huber , 419 N.E.2d at 12. That i s, we

mu st l oo k b e hin d a

de fe nd ant’ s me re a sse rt ion of pr ob a ble c a se to c on sid e r h is “ vie w o f h is situation” and “the fac ts a nd circ umstances” wh i ch h e k new or sh ou ld h av e k

no wn . Id . It is thi s

c ave a t, whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to c on sid e r, that c ha ng e s th e c omp le xion o f t

his ana ly sis

. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt sai d “ther e is p le nty of un dis pute d e vid e nc e in t he re c or d to e sta

bli sh probable cause .” Mem. Op., A pril 16, 2008, at 23. When the entirety of the re cord is conside red, howeve r, it is c lear

that the evidenc e which w ould support a finding of proba ble ca use is far from undisputed. When c onsidered in lig ht of what these defe ndants (Chief McClara n, Det. Snavely , and Offic er H ill) actually

knew or sh ou ld h av e k

no wn , g iven t heir view of t he si tuation, a re asonable jury could fi n d t hat there was no proba ble ca use to prosec ute Ms. Br iner. See R advansky v. City of Ol ms te d F all s , 496 F.3d 609, 614 ( 6th Cir. 2007).La r r y r epe at edl y a s s er t ed t h at h e h ad g i v en t h e B r i n er s t h e t i t l e t o t h e G M C t r u ck pr i or t o D ec embe r 30, 2004, 25 an d n ev er den i ed t h at he ha d t r an s f er r ed own er s h i p of

t h e G M C t r u ck t o t h e B r i n er s , y et h e obt ai n ed a du pl i ca t e t i t l e by f raudulent l y ass ert i ng t hat t he t ruck was hi s and t hat t he t i t l e was l o st or st o l en, rat her t h a n h avi ng be en gi ven t o t he B riners. 34 As but one example, we note that the district court re lied on t he appa rent c ontradiction betwee n Ms. Brine r’s e arlier asser tion that no one but she had see n L arr y sign the title and the

s u b s e qu e n t s tate me n t f

r o m M s . H is s o n g th a t s h e h a d s e e np r e c is e ly

th a t. H o w e v e r , th e f

u ll c o n te xt of Ms. B riner’ s statement, known to O ffice r Hill, wa s that she didn’t believe anyone could have see n into her off

ice to see L arr

y sign the title. That Offic er H ill was awa re of the context of Ms. Brine r’s

s t at em en t is clear

from the f

act that he repe atedly

asked Ms. B riner to que stion her employ ees

re g ard ing the e ve nts of De c e mbe r 30, 20 04 , in or de r t o d e te rm ine if

anyon e ha d s e e n a

ny thi ng . M s. Br iner, ther efor e, could be seen a s simply fulfilling Offic er Hill’s r equest in obta ining statements of tho se wh o s aw L arr

y sig n th e tit le , in

or de r t o a llo w the inv e sti g a tio n to pr og re ss. Othe r f a c ts a lso c ou ld s up po rt a jur y fi nd ingthat th e re wa s n o p ro ba ble c a us e to p ro se c ute Ms. Brine r. Ms. Br iner provide d tw o ad d i t i o n al sworn state ments from F &W employ ees which

corr oborate d the s tatements by Ms. Br iner and Ms. Hissong reg arding L arr y signing the t itle, but no one at the D epar

tment ever

investigated those statements. A jury could leg itimately question why Offic er Hill would acc ept, without a ppare nt que stion, the Paones’ asser tion that L arr

y had not bee n to F & W onDe c e mbe r 3 0 w he n th e fa c ts a pp e ar t o s ho w t

hat, a lso on

De c e mbe r 3 0, he fr a

ud ule ntl y obtai ned a du plic a te c op y of the tit le to t

he GM C tr

uc k. L ike wi se , a

re a so na ble jur y c ou ld 25 deter mine that Offic er H ill and Chief McClara n, amongothers prese nt when Ms. H issong r eca nted he r s wo rn

state me nt, sh ou ld h ave su sp e c te d th a t Ms . His so ng on ly re c ante d d

ue to t he e xtre me pressure broug ht to bear on her. Finally , a reasonable jury could questi on the m otives of t hose at the Depa rtment in investigating Ms. B riner a nd Ms. Hisson g af

t er consi deration of Det. Snavely ’s35

possible bias ag ainst Ms. H issong and the fa ct that Chief McClar an had inf ormed the D epar

tment that i t was no t to purs ue any inv e sti g a tio n o f t

he Pa on e s f

or the the ft of the GM C tr

uc k. Th is evidenc e, alongwith other evide nce in the record, creates a genuine issue of m ater ial fac t reg arding the exist ence of proba

ble ca use to arr est Ms. Br iner. Be cause there are materia l fac ts in disput e, this question should g o to a jury , and summary jud g me nt i s n ot a

pp ro pr iate. T he g ra

nt o f s umm a

ry jud g me nt t o th e City , Ch ie f M c Cla ra n, De t. Snavely , and Of

fice r Hill on this is sue is reve rsed. The district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt to Mr. Strickler is aff

irmed, as ther e ar e no fa cts in the rec ord sugg esting that Strickler had a ny thing to do with init iating c harg es ag ainst Ms. Brine r. B eca use this is a jury

question, the denial of the Br iners’ motion for summar y judgme nt is also affirme d. 3. F ir stAm e ndm e ntCl aimRe ga r ding th e Ya r d Sig ns The Br iners claim that they posted y ard sig ns as a f orm of political spee ch prote cted by the First Am en d m en t

. T hey claim that the City , including c erta in police offic ers a nd the zoning ins pe c tor (M r. Str ic kle r) , unla wf ull y thr e a te ne d an d hara sse d the m in re sp on se to t

he se y ard sig ns . Spe c if ic a lly , they

c la im that Mr . Stri c kle r r e pe a te dly thr e a te ne d th e m, b y

te le ph on e , w ith prosec ution, and sent threatening letters (u n t i l they obtained assistanc e fr om the ACL U), a nd that po lic e c ars ro uti ne ly

pa rk e d in fr on t of the ir ho me fo r l on g pe ri od s o f t ime in a n atte mpt to i nti mid a te the m. Alt ho ug h th e B ri ne rs did

no t surr e nd e r a

nd take do wn

the signs , th e y

we re su bje c te d to e ff

or ts at intimidation by

members of the Depa

rtment and have a lleg ed that they suffe red some a

mount of anxiety , fea

r, and intimidation. The dist rict court held t hat “the Br iners’ [F]irst [ A]mendment right of fre e spee ch wa s not

a c tua lly vio late d; t

he y we re no t pr e ve nte d fr om s pe akin g by wa y of the ir y ard sig ns . In o the r w or ds , the y su ff e re d no fi rs t ame ndme nt inj ur y -i n- fa c t.” Me m. Op ., Ap ri l 16 , 20 08 , a t 30

. Th is i s tr ue , s o36

far as it g oes. To the e x tent that they are attempting to make a claim for abridg ment of fr ee spe ech, the B ri ne rs c ann ot s ur

viv e summa

ry judgm ent becau se the ir

sp e e c h w a s n ot a

br idg e d. Th e y

sa id p l e n t y. But the district c ourt also held that this claim was “ not pled as a r etaliation claim. The ref ore, the Court doe s not c onstrue the alleg ations of Claim 8 as part of the first amendm en t re t al i at ion claim contained in Claim 1.” Id. at 30 n.30. True, it mig ht not have been pled that way , but it was (and is) c erta inly

argued that wa

y . This claim must be treated as a reta liation claim. As such, the Br iners nee d not show that they wer e actua lly chilled from eng ag ing in pr otected spe ech, but they must still satisfy traditional standing require ments. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F .3 d 378 , 3 94 (6 th Cir. 1999). In Thaddeus-X , we held that “[a]s long as the i njury is ‘distinct and palpable’ rather than abstrac t, c onjectura l, or hy pothetical, it is suffic ient to confe r standing .” Id. Whil e the a lleg ed injury to the Briners is not sever e, the alleg ations of fear, inti midation, and anx iety are not so ephemer al as to be properly

classified a s “abstra ct, conjec tural, or hy pothetical,” a

nd the B riners ha

ve

es t ab l i s h eds t an d i n g. We reve rse the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt to the City and Chief McClara n on this issue. We a ffirm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt to Det. Snavely and Of fice r Hi ll, ina smu c h a s the re is no c on te nti on (o r e vid e nc e ) that the y ha d any thi ng to do wi th thi s. L ike wi se , w e a ff

ir m th e di st ri ct c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o M r. Str ic kle r, a s th e re is insufficient e vidence to support the exis tence of a c onspiracy betwee n Mr. St ri ck l er a nd Chief McClara n to punish the Br iners’ for their criticism of the Depa rtment and Chief McClara n. And we

a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of the B ri ne rs ’ m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. 4. F ir stAm e ndm e ntCl aimRe ga r ding th e P ublic M e e ti ng The B riners a ssert that their r ight t o ad d ress the Cit y Council during the public comment37

section of a mee ting is cle arly established. See M

cBride v . Village of Michiana , 100 F.3d 457, 459 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) (u

nla wf ul t o r e mov e a

re po rt e r f

ro m a pu bli c me e tin g ); see also Riddle v

. Egensperge r , 2 66 F .3 d 5 42 , 5 50 (6 th Cir

. 20 01 ) ( “ F re e do m to c ri tic ize pu bli c of fi c ia ls a nd e xpos e the ir wr on g do ingis at th e c or e of F ir st Ame ndme nt v a lue s[.]” ); Glas so n v . Ci ty of L ou isv ill e , 518 F.2d 899, 904 ( 6th Cir. 1975) (“The rig ht of an Ame rica n cit i z en to criticize public officia ls and policies and a dvocate peac efully ideas for chang e is the centr al meaningof the F irst Amendment.”)

. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ana ly zed thi s is su e a s f

oll ow s: The re cord revea ls that there is absolutely no basis in fac t for this claim. . . . Mr. B riner a ddresse d the C ity Council on sever al occ asions. In particula r, Mr. B riner sp ok e to t

he City Counc il o n F e br

ua ry 1, 20 07 , b ut w as stopp e d b y the Cou nc il pr e sid e nt wh e n he be g an, ina pp ro pr iate ly , to ta lk a

bo ut the ins tant laws uit ; i n fac t, he wa s e sc or

te d o ut o f t

he me e tin g wh e n h e c on tin ue d to sp e ak a ft e r t

he Counc il [P ]resident told him he wa s out of order . There is no constitutional rig ht to disrupt city meeting s by

speakingout of order

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d b y M r . B r i n e r ’ s o w nt e s t i m o n y, n ei t h er M r. o r M rs . Br i n er wa s p re v en t edfr o mm ak i n g ap pr op ria te pu

bli c c omm e nts a t City Counc il m e e tin g s. Th e re fo re , s umm ary jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f t he City wi th respe ct to this claim is appropriate. Me m. O p. , Apr il 1 6, 20 08 , at 28- 29 (f oo tno te omi tte d; em

ph a sis in or ig ina l) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt did

no t c ite any

le g a l pr e c e de nt f

or its pr op os iti on

that the g ov e rnme nt m ay lim it s pe e c h to c on te nt i t de e ms “ a pp ro pr iate ,” no r d id i t id e nti fy any ob jec tiv e c ri te ri a

fo r d e te rm ini ngwh e the r p ub lic

comme n ts ar e “ a

p p r o p r iate

. ” T h e s p e c if ic s p e e c h th a t th e Co un c il Pr e s id e n t s u p p r e s s e d as “inappr opriate” was Mr. B riner’ s questioning a bout the litigation — the President (a nd the district court) deemed the content of the questi ons “inappr opriate.” The Council President’s de termination that Mr . B ri ne r w a s “ out of or de r, ” and

the re fo re e ng a g e d in

“ ina pp ro pr iate ” pu

bli c c omme nts , appea rs to be base d on nothing more than the conte nt of Mr. B riner’ s speec h. Ba sed on the re cord, the Br iners appea r to have been e ng ag ed in leg itimate questioning a nd38

criticism of public off

icials, conduc t protec ted by the First Amendment. There is no evidenc e on the

re c or d th a t Mr. B ri ne r wa s eng a g e d in any thr e a te nin g or ha ra ssi ng be havio r, so Mr . B ri ne r s ho uld have be e n a llo we d to a sk

the Counc il ( his g ov e rnme nt) vir tua lly any qu e sti on on

any top ic he lik e s, tho ug h the Counc il wo uld no t have be e n re qu ir e d to ans we r. Th e Cou nc il w ou ld h ave be e n w ith in its rights to set ce rtain limit s on the public comment portion of the meetingand could have re fused to answer questions it does not want to answer ; i t cannot, howe ver, pr ohibit protected political speec h on the vague and br oad g rounds that t h e co n t en t of that spee ch is “inappr opriate.” The Br iners ra ise leg itimate q u es t ions of materia l fac t for the jury , and summary judgme nt was inappropriate. 5. Equa l P r ot e c ti on C lai m The district court held t hat t he Briner s cannot support their equal protection cla im that “the y ard sig n enfor ceme nt by the C ity was ‘selective.’ ” Mem. Op., April 16, 2008, at 30. The B riners claimed that, by

disallowing the ir portable sign but a llowing ever y other portable sign all over town, the City was e nfor ci n g a rul e ag ainst them that it did not enfor ce a g ainst anyone else — and they offe red pic tures of a

dozen portable sig ns that th e C i t y wa s then allowing . The district cour t explained: All o f t he photog raphs [that the Br iners submitted as evidenc e of nonenfor ceme nt of the sig n restric tion, for purposes of showing selec tive prosec ution] show y ard sig ns that amounted to adver tising. There wer e no political signs which might be used to c ompare content to see if the B riners’ content wa s being challeng ed wher eas similar c ontent on other sig ns was not cha lleng ed. Id. a t 31 . T his state me nt b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

ind ic a te s a

mis un de rs tand ingre g ardi ng the B ri ne rs ’ claims. The B riners a lleg e that the City challeng ed their signs beca use of their content and viewpoint (political, critica l of the City), while it allowed othe r sig ns beca u s e o f t heir diff ere nt content39

(adve rtising, view

point-neutral) . The F irst Amendment does not allow for this dist inction. The B riners a lso argue that they are a “class of one,” in the mold of Village of W illow brook v. Olec h , 528 U.S. 562 (2000). Evidenc e wa s s u b m i t t ed to the district court that Mr. Strickler

a dmi tte d th is w a s th e on ly tim e he ha d e ve r so ug ht to have a po lit ic a l sig n r e mov e d o r t o p ro se c ute

someone fo r p o s t i n g such a sig n. This raises a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t reg ardingwhether enfor cemen t of the City ’s sig n ordinanc es wa s selective; summary judgme nt was there fore inappropriate. 6. M unic ipa l Lia bili tyCl aim “Municipal liability

may attach f or policies promulg ated by the offic ial ves t ed with final policy making authority

for the municipa lity .” Mi lle r v . Ca lho un Cou nty , 408 F.3d 803, 813 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Pe mb au r v . City of Cinc inn ati , 475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986)) . In its original or der, the district court conc luded: “The re is no question that a police c hief is at lea st one of the policy -making authorities for a

city police depa

rtment. Ther efor e, if McClar an is found liable in his officia l capa city , municipal liability will attach to City of Ontario.” Mem. Op., April 16, 2008, at 28. The district court only

disallowed t he muni cipal li ability claim after it had g rante d summary judgme nt to Chief McClara

n. Be cause Chief McClara

n is not entitl ed to summary judgme n t on the other c laims (as explained here in), the municipal liability claim survives. Summary judgme nt was inappropr iate. 7. De fam at ion Cl aim The district cour

t dism i s s ed t h i s claim, su a s po nte , beca

use it found the ac cusation in the

c omp la int to b e to o vag ue . T he c ourt c ite d n o a

uth or ity to j us tif y thi s d ism iss a l. T his is n ot a qu e sti on of su bje c t matte r jur isd ic tio n o r a statut or ily

imp os e d g a te ke e pin g fu

nc tio n ( e .g ., 28 U. S.C. § 1 9 1 5 A o r 2 8 U. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 ). T h i s wa s a d ec i s i o nb as edo nth e p l ai n t i ff s ’ p l ea d i n g.40

Th e Th ir d Ci rc uit

and the Ni nth Cir c uit (i n at le a st one c a se ) al low c ourt s to di smi ss c la ims ,
su a s po nte , when it is clea

r from the fac e of the pleading that the plaintiff cannot obtain relief

. See , e.g. , Ray v . Kertes , 285 F .3 d 287 , 2 97 (3 d Ci r. 20 02 ); Bryson v. Brand Insul., Inc. , 621 F.2d 556, 559 (3 d Ci r. 19 80 ); Bintlif

f-Ritchie v. A m. Re. Co. , 2 85 F . App ’x 940, 94 3 (3d Cir . 2 00 8) ; Speight v. Sims , 28 3 F . App ’x 88 0, 88 1 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 8) ; McM

anama v. J

ones , 258 F. App’x 941 (9th Cir. 2007). The

ma jo r it y o f Ci r c u it s d o n o t f

o ll o w th is a

p p r oach. S

ee , e.g ., Lozano v. Ocwen Fe deral Bank, FSB , 48 9 F. 3d 63 6, 64 2 (5t

h Cir. 20 07 ); Dawson v. Newman , 4 19 F .3 d 6 56 (7 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Fredym a v. AT& T Network Sys., I

nc. , 9 35 F .2 d 3 68 (1 st C ir . 1 99 1) ; Tho ma s v . S c ull y , 943 F.2d 259 ( 2d Cir .1 99 1) ; Smith v. Boyd, 9 45 F .2 d 1 04 1 (8t h Cir. 19 91 ). We have ne ve r al low e d this in the Sixth Circuit. See , e.g. , Robbins v. Cyprus Cumberland Coal Co. , 146 F.3d 425, 42 9 (6 t h Cir. 1998); Andreano v. City of W

estlake , 1 36 F . App ’x 86 5 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) ; Flood v. Phillips , 90 F. App’ x 108, 11 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) ; Hargate v. G aines , 1999 WL 397956, *2 (6th Cir. 1999)

. At any rate , it is not

c le ar f ro m th e ple a din g tha

t the B ri ne rs wo uld be un a ble to ob ta in re lie f, so e ve n in the Th ir d Ci rc uit

and Ni nth Cir c uit dis mis sa l of the B ri ne rs ’ de fa matio n c la im w ou ld h ave be e n in a pp ro pr iate . T his claim must be reinstate d. 8. Ci vilCo nspi r ac y C lai m Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary jud g me nt on thi s c la im ba se d on its c on c lus ion that on ly Chi e f M c Cla

ra n w a s e ve n p os sib ly

lia ble and the pr op os iti on

that “ [a] pe rs on

c ann ot c on sp ir e wi th himself.” Mem. Op., A

pril 16, 2008, at 27. After havingconclude d that the only constitutional right that might have been violate d was the B riners’ First Amendme nt rig ht of fre e spee ch whe n Chief McClara n remove d F& W from the tow-list, the district court deter mined t h at no one but Chief M c C l ar anw a s i n v o l v e d , s o t h e r e c o u l d b e n o c o n s p i r a c y. As descr ibed her ein, we be lieve that district court misunderstood the B riners’ complaint and41

the re quirements of the summary judgme nt standard. W e h av e reverse d the g rant of summar y judgme nt on four of the Br iners re taliation claims, requiringthe re instatement of claims aga inst other de fe nd ants . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jus tif ic a tio n f or g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt o n the B ri ne rs ’ c ivi l conspirac y claim, there fore , is no longe r valid. The evidenc e in the rec ord also ind i ca t es the exis tence of g enuine issues of materia l f act reg arding the exis tence of a conspira cy . Sufficient evidenc e exists t o support a jury finding that Chief M cClara n, Det. S navely , and Of

fice r Hill — and possibly others — wor

ked in conc ert ove r a 14- month period to further the malicious prosec ution of Ms. Br iner. See A dicke s v. S.H. Kress &Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 151-52 (1970). We r e ve rs e the g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th is c la im. We l e ave fo r t he dis tr ic t c ourt , up on re mand , to de te rm ine wh e the r t h e i nt r a - c o r p o r a t e c o n s p ir a c y

do c tr ine , f

ir st r a ise d b y

de fe nd ants

on appea l, ma

y be invoked a s a def

ense, Hull v. Cuyahoga Vall ey Joint Voc. Sch. D ist. Bd. of Educ. , 926 F.2d 505, 510 ( 6th Cir. 1991) (“Since a ll of the defe ndants are members of the s ame c ollective

e nti ty , th e re are no t tw o s e pa rate ‘p e op le ’ to fo rm a c on sp ir a c y .” ), or wh e the r, a s th e B ri ne rs c la im, the doctrine is inapplicable to § 1983 ac tions, Kin k us v . V illage of Yor kvi lle , 476 F.Supp.2d 829, 838-41 (S.D. Ohio 2007), reve rsed on other grounds , 289 F. App’ x 86, 90 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008). 9 . S ta te L a w Cl a i ms The district cour

t declined jurisdiction over the state lawclaims, citin g 2 8 U. S

. C . § 1367(c) (3), whic h say s: “The district courts may decline to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over

a claim under subsection (a) if.

. . the dist ri ct co u rt h as d ismiss ed all claims over which it has

or ig ina l juri sd ic tio n” (e mph a sis a dd e d) . B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , in wh ic h w e re ins tate d a lmo st a ll of the fe de ra l c la ims , w e mus t r e ins tate the state law c la ims a s w e ll. CO NC LU SION Ba sed on the fore g oing, w e AF F IRM the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on theIn the ir b rie f o n a p p e a l, the C ity d e fen d a n ts ra ise a q u a lif ie d im m u n ity c la im

. A s the y d id no t p re se n t t h is to 26 t he di s t r i ct cour t , we wi l l not cons i der i t he r e. T hey may r ai s e i t on r emand i f t hey s o choose

. 42 fi ft h r e ta liatio n c la im, on

the ma lic iou s p ro se c uti on c la im as to Mr . Stri c kle r onl y , an d on th e F ir st Amendment claim as t o Det. S navely and Of fice r Hill only . We also AF F IRM the district court’s denial of summary judgme nt to the Br iners. We RE VE RSE the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on all remainingclaims and a s t o all rema ining pa rties, and REMAND this case to the district court for

further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. 26