Opinion ID: 661051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: william salisbury

Text: 13 Josey sued Salisbury, as a Detroit police officer, for wrongfully arresting him knowing that he had not committed a crime in his presence, and conspiring to make out false arrest reports, causing him to be falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted. Josey added a libel and slander count and a claim of violation of his civil rights. The same attorney filed similar charges for Lloyd and Gibson against Salisbury. Testimony in the record, however, clearly indicates that Riccinto and his partner, Salisbury, were patrolling and surveilling at the pertinent times in an area of high narcotics trafficking. Only Riccinto testified that he observed, with binoculars for fifteen minutes, Lloyd engaged in drug activities, and Josey and Gibson covering him at the time with firearms. Riccinto testified that he left his cover; ran to the squad car, and informed Salisbury, giving him a description of what he, Riccinto, had just purportedly observed. 14 The testimony from Riccinto followed that they both then proceeded to that location with guns drawn. Riccinto arrested Lloyd and Gibson, and Salisbury pursued and arrested Josey. Riccinto added that Salisbury found and seized crack cocaine at the site. Riccinto's testimony in this regard is supported by a preliminary complaint record signed by Salisbury, who indicated that he was advised by Riccinto of what he had purportedly just observed. Another officer also signed the report. 15 Riccinto's preliminary report supported his testimony, and went into further detail concerning his alleged observations and the arrest of the three plaintiffs together with confiscation of contraband drugs, weapons and money. The investigator's report also supported Riccinto's testimony, particularly that it was he alone who initially observed and reported the illegal activity. An affidavit by one of the plaintiff's attorneys indicated that Riccinto [primarily] change [sic] his testimony between the evidentiary hearing and trial one and two. He also indicated, by hearsay, that the state judge involved believed that the Defendants had lied while testifying, and that the testimony of the officers at the preliminary examination was essentially the same as the PCR [preliminary complaint report]. The plaintiff's attorney describes the sequence of events in the appellate brief: 16 Officer Riccinto claimed to have observed three separate transactions that appeared to be the sale of narcotics near the garage located at 14200 Parkgrove in the City of Detroit. 17 After observing these transactions, he met with his partner, Salisbury in the police car. The officers then pulled up to the location and arrested the Plaintiffs-Appellees. 18 The examining magistrate refused to have Riccinto at the examination disclose the location from which the view of the alleged narcotic activity took place. 19 A careful examination of the record submitted indicates that Salisbury clearly acted upon the report and advice of his partner. He did not purport to witness the drug deals or the possession of the weapons in furthering and protecting the drug sales. Upon his arrival on the scene, Riccinto's account was borne out by what Salisbury saw: the presence of the defendants, weapons, and Josey's flight. He discovered evidence of crack cocaine and money that clearly supported Riccinto's report to him. 3 20 We find no basis for denying Salisbury's claim of qualified immunity under these circumstances. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's denial of Salisbury's motion for summary judgment.