Opinion ID: 2977542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: m. to go to work.

Text: The next day, investigators visited Flowers at work and asked him (or, according to Flowers, “ordered him”) to go with them to the police station to assist in the murder investigation. Flowers No. 08-1035 Flowers v. City of Detroit, et al. Page 3 told the officers that he was at home with his fiancée, Sharon Jackson, at the time of the murder. He said that he and Jackson had been at Smiley’s apartment playing cards with Rounds and Smiley the night before the murder and that he had spent the night there. According to Flowers, Jackson had picked him up early the next morning to take him to work and that was the last time he had seen Smiley. On April 22, a second investigator interviewed Rounds, and she gave a second written statement. Rounds revealed that her earlier statement was not truthful because, in addition to giving a false name, she had lied about not being able to identify the second man involved—she had known all along it was Flowers. Rounds explained that she did not reveal Flowers’ identity in her first written statement because, immediately after the murder, he had threatened to kill her if she did not keep quiet. Later that day, Flowers learned from Jackson’s son that police had surrounded their home. Flowers and Jackson went to the police station where Flowers was arrested. According to Flowers, Jackson was willing to provide a statement corroborating Flowers’ account that he was at home with her at the time of the murder, but the investigators did not get a written statement from Jackson. A formal warrant was obtained two days later, on April 24, charging Flowers with first degree murder, felony murder, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and as a habitual offender under Michigan’s statute for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. The warrant request was based on Rounds’ second written statement. It did not mention Rounds’ previous statement, nor Jackson’s offer to give a statement that she was with Flowers at the time of the murder. On May 14 a state judge presided over Flowers’ preliminary examination. At the hearing, No. 08-1035 Flowers v. City of Detroit, et al. Page 4 Rounds and Officer Newman, the investigator who had submitted the warrant request, testified. After the county prosecutor ended his direct examination of each witness, the judge gave Flowers’ criminal defense attorney an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which he declined. Once the testimony concluded, the court heard arguments from the prosecution and defense counsel. The court dropped the weapons charges, but found probable cause on the murder charges and bound Flowers over for trial. The trial was supposed to begin on August 16, but Rounds, the prosecution’s only witness, failed to appear and the court dismissed the murder charges. Flowers filed a complaint in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Detroit, four named police officers, and other unknown officers alleging: false arrest and false imprisonment (Count I), malicious prosecution (Count II), gross negligence (Count III), abuse of process (Count IV), warrantless search and seizure without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count V), malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count VI), and deliberate indifference by the City of Detroit (Count VII). The Defendants removed the case to federal court where the district court granted their motion for summary judgment on the ground that issue preclusion barred Flowers from relitigating the existence of probable cause. Flowers appeals.