Opinion ID: 2978025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fourth Amendment Claims (Counts One and Three)

Text: If an officer has probable cause, then the resulting arrest or seizure will not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Logsdon v. Hains, 492 F.3d 334, 341 (6th Cir. 2007). Similarly, if a prosecutor has probable cause, then his decision to prosecute will not be malicious or a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Voyticky, 412 F.3d at 675. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on all Fourth Amendment claims because of the existence of probable cause for each of the arrests and prosecutions at issue. 1. Search, Seizure, and Arrest for Operating a Motor Vehicle without a Valid License The City Defendants had probable cause to stop Wiley for operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license. Officer Chapman stated in an affidavit that he observed Wiley driving, knew that her license was suspended, and confirmed his suspicion through the Oberlin Police Department Dispatcher’s use of the Leads System before arresting her. See United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949, 958 (6th Cir. 2007). Wiley does not challenge that Chapman knew her license was suspended or argue that she did not commit this violation, pleading no contest to the charge in 2004. Even assuming that Chapman had other reasons for stopping Wiley, they are not relevant to the Fourth Amendment inquiry. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”); United States v. Ferguson, 8 F.3d 385, 391 (6th Cir.1993) (“We focus . . . on whether this particular officer in fact -5- No. 07-4441 Wiley v. Oberlin Police Dep’t. et al. had probable cause to believe that a traffic offense had occurred. . . . [I]t is irrelevant what else the officer knew or suspected about the traffic violator at the time of the stop.”). Further, even if Chapman had searched her vehicle, such a search would not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Campbell, 486 F.3d at 958 (“[P]olice officers are permitted to search the vehicle associated with a defendant’s lawful arrest for the purpose of taking an inventory of its contents prior to impoundment, even if the police have no probable cause to otherwise search the vehicle.”). 2. Arrest for Domestic Violence The City Defendants had probable cause to arrest Wiley for domestic violence. After receiving a 9-1-1 call from Howard that his girlfriend was attacking him, Officer Diewald responded to Howard’s residence. Howard told him that Wiley had hit him in the chest where he had recently received a pacemaker, showed him the redness in the area of the alleged attack, and requested charges against Wiley for domestic violence and a temporary restraining order. Sergeant Barnes took a written statement from Howard, confirming the statements made to Officer Diewald, as well as two pictures of his chest injuries. Howard’s statements, the observations of the responding officers, and the photographs provided sufficient evidence of probable cause for the arrest. See Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 257 (6th Cir. 2003). Wiley provided an alternative explanation for the physical altercation, but she does not dispute Howard’s statements or information in the police reports that she hit him in the chest. 3. Arrest for Violating Temporary Protective Order The City Defendants had probable cause to arrest Wiley for violation of a TPO. In September 2003, the Oberlin Municipal Court issued a TPO in connection with the domestic -6- No. 07-4441 Wiley v. Oberlin Police Dep’t. et al. violence charge providing that Wiley “shall not initiate any contact with” Howard, his residence, or his place of employment. Howard worked for Oberlin College. In October 2003, the OPD received a call from Oberlin College Safety and Security Officer Wohleber that Wiley had contacted Oberlin College employee Debra Thomas several times. Thomas provided a written statement to Oberlin College and told Sergeant Ramsdell that she had received several calls from Wiley asking her to retrieve some of Wiley’s property from Howard’s residence. Thomas requested that Ramsdell ask Wiley to stop calling her, and the report stated that he did so. Later, Houghland told Officer Ellis that Wiley was still calling Thomas, and he confirmed the allegations with Thomas. The witness statement and communications detailed in the investigative supplements provided sufficient evidence of probable cause for the arrest. Wiley does not dispute that she called Oberlin College and asked Thomas to get some of her belongings. She also does not challenge the veracity of the information in the police reports. 4. Malicious Prosecution The district court correctly found that Wiley could not prevail on her § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution arising under the Fourth Amendment. This court has explained “that such a claim fails when there was probable cause to prosecute.” Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227, 237 (6th Cir. 2007). Wiley failed to show that Prosecutor Walsh lacked probable cause to initiate proceedings for the charges of domestic violence or violating a protective order. As explained above, the police officers had probable cause to arrest Wiley on these charges. In turn, the information provided by the police reports and investigative supplements provided Walsh with sufficient evidence of probable cause to prosecute. -7- No. 07-4441 Wiley v. Oberlin Police Dep’t. et al.