Opinion ID: 752979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity for Advising the Police and Ordering the Arrest

Text: 20 Kaiser is not, however, absolutely immune for either his role in the preliminary investigation of Manetta and Swieczkowski or his decision to order the couple held on extortion charges after the controlled exchange at the restaurant. See id. at 1447 & n. 7. Rather, he is entitled to qualified immunity for these acts. Ibid. Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal laws unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Thus, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claims of Manetta and Swieczkowski unless, when he acted, the law established the contours of the right allegedly violated so clearly that a reasonable official would have understood his acts were unlawful. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Qualified immunity provides a broad range of protection, as it protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). 21 In the present case, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims of Manetta and Swieczkowski alleging that he violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from arrest without probable cause when he advised the police to pursue the investigation of the couple and when he ordered them held on extortion charges following the exchange. This is because, under the facts of this case and the applicable Michigan law, Kaiser reasonably could have believed that probable cause existed to justify his actions. 22 The Supreme Court has explained that probable cause constitutes facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offense. Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 2632, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979). Kaiser initially consulted with Detective Schram on November 23. At that time, he could reasonably believe, from speaking with Schram and reviewing the materials Schram had collected, that: (1) Karam had been referred to the police by County Prosecutor Tom Landy; (2) Manetta had quit working for Karam after she had an affair with him; (3) Karam had heard from Swieczkowski and his sister, Karen, that Manetta planned to file a sexual harassment suit against him and other people he worked with; (4) Swieczkowski had discussed settling this lawsuit with Karam and during these discussions he repeatedly mentioned that he had consulted with an attorney; (5) When Karam wavered about settling the suit, Swieczkowski said it would be a shame if [Karam's] wife and kids were to find out about the affair and that no one would learn of the affair if Karam were to pay the money; (6) Swieczkowski had indicated that settling was Manetta's decision and that he could not sign off on the settlement without her approval; (7) Swieczkowski was concerned about the tax consequences of any settlement; (8) Karam stated that he did not want attorneys involved when Swieczkowski offered to have his lawyer fax settlement documents to Karam's attorney; (9) Karen Karam was unable to get Manetta to disclose the name of her attorney and believed that Swieczkowski was using Manetta to get money from her brother. Based on this information, Kaiser advised Detective Schram to have Karam stop contacting Manetta and Swieczkowski and not speak with the couple unless they initiated contact. Swieczkowski did subsequently initiate contact. After further developments, Schram again consulted with Kaiser on November 30. 23 At this time, Kaiser learned the following additional information: (1) Swieczkowski had told Karam that Manetta was going ahead with the lawsuit and that it had already been filed and papers were being sent to the process server; (2) Swieczkowski then agreed to an all-cash settlement; (3) Detective Schram had verified that no lawsuit had been filed; and (4) Swieczkowski and Karam agreed to a time and place to exchange the money and sign a release. Upon learning this information, Kaiser helped Schram develop a release form for Karam to take to the exchange and arranged to get marked bills for Karam to use. 24 Although the exact boundaries of Michigan's extortion law are not totally clear, a reasonable official could have believed that there was reason to investigate Manetta and Swieczkowski for extortion. After Swieczkoswki lied about filing the lawsuit, a reasonable official could also have believed that he was justified in conducting the controlled exchange. Plaintiffs do not allege that Kaiser had any constitutionally suspect motive, such as their race, for continuing the investigation or setting up the controlled exchange. Absent such an impermissible motive, there is no basis for asserting that the actions Kaiser took before he ordered the couple's arrest violated their constitutional rights. 5 The couple does state a constitutional claim in alleging that their arrest following the exchange violated their Fourth Amendment rights. However, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, under the facts of this case and the law in existence at the time Kaiser acted, a reasonable official could have believed that, under Michigan law, Manetta and Swieczkowski had committed extortion. 25 Michigan's extortion statute, M.C.L.A. section 750.213 provides: 26 Any person who shall, either orally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threaten to accuse another of any crime or offense, or shall orally or by any written or printed communication maliciously threaten any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 20 years or by a fine of not more than 10,000 dollars. 27 The district court erroneously determined that a reasonable official with the knowledge Kaiser had could not have believed there was probable cause to investigate and arrest Manetta and Swieczkowski under Michigan's extortion law. This error apparently resulted from the district court's reliance on a 1995 federal case and analogies to the law of other states and the Model Penal Code. The district court could not rely on a 1995 opinion to assess Kaiser's actions because, under existing qualified immunity jurisprudence, Kaiser's actions must be assessed in light of the law in existence at the time [they were] taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The conduct at issue occurred in 1993. 28 Additionally, the Michigan case law construing the state's extortion statute that was in existence when Kaiser acted interpreted extortion to cover a broader range of conduct than did the extortion laws of other states that the district court examined or the Model Penal Code. In People v. Igaz, 119 Mich.App. 172, 189, 326 N.W.2d 420 (1982), an intermediate appellate court construed Michigan's extortion statute to encompass emotional injury. The extortion in Igaz was committed by a prisoner who wrote letters to his former girlfriend threatening that if she did not post his bond he would send nude photos of her to her ex-husband's attorney. Id. at 187, 326 N.W.2d at 426-27. At the time the prisoner wrote these letters to his former girlfriend, she was in the middle of a bitter custody dispute with her ex-husband. Ibid. 29 The Michigan Supreme Court later vacated the court of appeals judgment in Igaz and remanded the case for reconsideration of the issue of appellate review of sentencing in light of a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling. People v. Igaz, 418 Mich. 893, 341 N.W.2d 467 (1983). However, Michigan's high court denied in all other respects leave to appeal. Ibid. Accordingly, if Kaiser researched Michigan law in November 1993 to see whether the state's extortion statute covered threats to reveal an adulterous affair unless money was paid, Igaz was the only guidance. It indicated that such threats to inflict emotional injury were covered under the statute. Thus it was objectively reasonable for Kaiser to determine that Swieczkowski's alleged threats to reveal Karam's affair with Manetta constituted extortion under Michigan law. 30 Certainly, the circumstances may have painted an ambiguous picture as to whether the couple was pursuing a lawsuit or trying to extort money from Karam by veiling a threat to disclose his adulterous affair with Manetta under the guise of settling a potential legal action. It was especially unclear at the time Schram first met with Kaiser. After that initial meeting, Kaiser advised Schram to tell Karam not to speak with the couple unless the couple took the initiative to contact him. After Swieczkowski did initiate further contact with Karam, subsequent developments made it much more reasonable to believe the couple was attempting to extort money rather than settle a legal claim. This was especially so after Swieczkowski told Karam that the lawsuit had been filed and Schram verified with the clerk's office that it had not. It was only after this development that Kaiser advised and assisted Schram in going ahead with the controlled exchange and ordered the couple arrested on extortion charges following the exchange. Although it later became apparent that the couple had been consulting with a lawyer and may have been attempting to settle a matter they were considering taking to court, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity does not evaporate simply because after the race it becomes apparent that the official picked the wrong horse. It is unavailable only if no reasonable official could have believed, based on the information available at the time he made his decision, that the action was constitutional. This was not the case here. III 31 Because Kaiser was entitled to either qualified or absolute immunity for all of the conduct forming the basis of Manetta's and Swieczkowski's section 1983 claims, we REVERSE the district court's ruling denying Kaiser's motions for summary judgment on these claims.