Opinion ID: 4387367
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rayfield’s Arrest

Text: As an initial matter, and putting aside Rayfield’s contentions regarding the video evidence, we conclude that Hornbacher and Glowney had probable cause to arrest Rayfield on October 1, 2014. The PPO prohibited Rayfield from “approaching or confronting [Sawinski] in a public place or on private property” or “entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by [Sawinski].” R. 26-1 (PPO at 1) (Page ID #152) (emphasis added). As Rayfield admitted in his amended complaint, the officers responded to Sawinski’s report regarding an “altercation” between her and Rayfield in their shared garage. R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 26) (Page ID #86) (“Sawinski promptly called the Grand Rapids Police pertaining to an altercation with Plaintiff in the garage of the house.”).6 Reasonable officers could conclude that, by engaging in an 6 Although we need not rely on it, we do note that in his police report following the arrest, Hornbacher explained that: “I asked Gary if he confronted Nancy about [a missing electrical cord] and he stated that [he] had and had video taped it. When asked where he was when he confronted Nancy[,] Gary pointed to the east side service door to the garage.” R. 26-4 (Police Report at 4) 14 No. 18-1927, Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids et al. “altercation” with Sawinski in their shared garage, Rayfield had violated both the prohibition against “confronting” Sawinski and the prohibition against “remaining on property . . . occupied by [Sawinski].” Moreover, prior to responding to the call, the officers confirmed that the PPO was still in place. Id. ¶ 28 (Page ID #86). And although Rayfield contends that the officers knew he had previously gone to court to vacate the PPO, when Rayfield raised this issue during his arrest, the officers checked again and “RADIO confirmed that the PPO was still valid.” Id. ¶ 29 (Page ID #86). Rayfield’s assertions regarding the officers’ knowledge about the impracticality of enforcing the PPO and Sawinski’s allegedly invalid basis for seeking the PPO do not undermine this finding. First, assuming both officers understood the impracticality of enforcing a PPO against neighbors who shared a garage, the mere fact that an order is difficult to enforce does not suggest that it cannot therefore be violated. Second, although Hornbacher requested that the PPO be lifted following Rayfield’s arrest because “[Sawinski] has shown that she is willing to confront and aggravate [Rayfield] (and he the same to her)” and Hornbacher did not believe that Sawinski “feared for her safety,” at the time of his arrest, the PPO was still validly in effect. Id. ¶¶ 28–30 (Page ID #86). As noted above, at the time of Rayfield’s arrest, a reasonable officer could conclude that Rayfield was in violation of the clear language of the still-effective PPO when he engaged in an “altercation” with Sawinski in their shared garage. Moreover, while the report indicated that Hornbacher did not believe that (Page ID #162). We note that the Amended Complaint quotes from other sections of Hornbacher’s report. R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28–31) (Page ID #86). 15 No. 18-1927, Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids et al. Sawinski truly “feared for her safety,” the report also explained that Sawinski and Rayfield had repeatedly “confront[ed] and aggravate[ed]” each other. Id. ¶ 30 (Page ID #86). This suggests that, when Sawinski reported the “altercation” on October 1, 2014, Hornbacher could reasonably believe that, yet again, Rayfield was “confronting” Sawinski, directly in violation of the plain language of the PPO. R. 26-1 (PPO at 1) (Page ID #152). For similar reasons, even assuming Hornbacher and Glowney were aware of the August 2014 report in which Sawinski allegedly admitted that she had secured the PPO in order to “circumvent” the eviction process, R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 23) (Page ID #85), Hornbacher and Glowney were still faced with a situation in which (1) a valid PPO was in effect against Rayfield and (2) Rayfield was engaging in an “altercation” with the PPO petitioner. This was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Rayfield for violating the PPO.7 This leaves us with the issue of whether, prior to arresting Rayfield, the officers were required to view the video that, according to Rayfield, showed that Sawinski was the aggressor and that he had not violated the PPO. As noted above, when determining whether probable cause 7 Admittedly, if Rayfield’s arrest had been predicated only on Sawinski’s eye witness statement that Rayfield had accosted her, both the August 2014 report and Hornbacher’s own conclusions in his police report may have defeated a finding of probable cause. See Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 370 (noting that “[a]n eyewitness identification will constitute sufficient probable cause unless, at the time of the arrest, there is an apparent reason for the officer to believe that the eyewitness was lying, did not accurately describe what he had seen, or was in some fashion mistaken” (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, because Rayfield stated in his amended complaint that Sawinski had called the police “pertaining to an altercation with [Rayfield],” R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 26) (Page ID #86), and explained that, at the very least, Sawinski had confronted him in the garage, Rayfield does not challenge that an altercation occurred. Consequently, Sawinski’s eyewitness account of the incident is not the sole basis supporting probable cause in this case. 16 No. 18-1927, Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids et al. exists to arrest an individual, officers “cannot simply turn a blind eye” to exculpatory evidence, Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 372, or “ignore information which becomes available in the course of routine investigations,” Fridley, 291 F.3d at 873. However, “[o]nce probable cause is established, an officer is under no duty to investigate further or to look for additional evidence which may exculpate the accused.” Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 371; see also Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (noting that a suspect’s “plausible explanation” for suspicious behavior does not “require the officer to forego [an] arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initially discovered provide probable cause”). In general, had Hornbacher and Glowney arrested Rayfield solely for violating the PPO’s prohibition on “confronting” Sawinski, the officers should have reviewed the video before arresting Rayfield, as it allegedly contained exculpatory––and corroborative––evidence showing that Rayfield had not violated the PPO. Specifically, unlike cases in which a suspect merely tells officers that he is innocent or offers an innocent explanation for his suspicious actions, Rayfield attempted to show Hornbacher and Glowney documentary evidence which, he contends, proved that Sawinski was the aggressor and, therefore, he had not violated the PPO. Cf. Klein, 275 F.3d at 552 (“Where the police have sufficient inculpatory evidence to give rise to a determination of probable cause and they do not know of any exculpatory evidence, we have held that ‘the failure to make a further investigation does not negate probable cause.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Coogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir. 1987))); Fridley, 291 F.3d at 874–75 (concluding that officers do not have to investigate a defendant’s possible affirmative defense before arresting him unless the officers “conclusively knew” the defense applied to him). Here, 17 No. 18-1927, Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids et al. the need to view the potentially exculpatory video is particularly notable given the abstract facts of this case, as Rayfield’s amended complaint indicates that, at the very least, Hornbacher suspected both that the PPO was unnecessary and that Sawinski, the only eye witness, had not been truthful about her fear of Rayfield when she secured the PPO. See Gardenhire, 205 F.3d at 316–18 (noting that “[a] police officer has probable cause only when he discovers reasonably reliable information that the suspect has committed a crime” and concluding that there was a question of material fact as to the existence of probable cause when the police relied on the testimony of only the complainant and did not investigate the suspects’ statements and evidence suggesting that the complainant had actually stolen from the suspects). Although officers are not required to conduct further investigations to disprove possible affirmative defenses or to corroborate a suspect’s proclaimed innocence, when a suspect presents allegedly exculpatory, and quickly ascertainable, evidence showing that the officers’ basis for probable cause is inaccurate, those officers may not turn a “blind eye” to that evidence in favor of the inculpatory evidence. Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 372. The problem for Rayfield, however, is that the video was not, in fact, exculpatory evidence. Rayfield contends that the video would have shown that: (1) Sawinski, rather than Rayfield, was the aggressor; and, (2) Rayfield had therefore not violated the PPO. R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 31) (Page ID #86). But even if the video had shown that Sawinski was the aggressor, this would not have undermined the officers’ conclusion that Rayfield had violated the PPO. The PPO prohibited Rayfield from “remaining on property [that Sawinski] occupied.” R. 26-1 (PPO at 1) (Page ID #152). Rayfield notes in his amended complaint that Sawinski reported an “altercation” between 18 No. 18-1927, Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids et al. the two of them. R. 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 26) (Page ID #86). Consequently, even if Sawinski initiated the altercation, because there was, in fact, an altercation between the two on property that Sawinski “occupied,” reasonable officers could conclude that Rayfield had violated the PPO. Viewing the video would not have changed that fact or the probable cause calculus; Hornbacher and Glowney, therefore, were not required to view it. Cf. In re Kabanuk, 813 N.W.2d 348, 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (“[O]ne who holds a PPO is under no obligation to act in a certain way. Instead, a court must look only to the behavior of the individual against whom the PPO is held.”). For all the reasons stated above, we agree that, even taking all of Rayfield’s allegations as true, Rayfield has not plausibly asserted that Hornbacher and Glowney lacked probable cause to arrest him for violating the PPO. We consequently affirm the district court’s dismissal of Count I for failure to state a claim.