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

Heading: Same Issue Litigated

Text: Flowers argues that his claim focuses not on whether probable cause existed, but on whether Defendants attempted to “frame” him by “misstat[ing] the facts and deliberately omitt[ing] exculpatory evidence from the warrant request; thus, creating a false and incomplete version of the facts in order to establish probable cause.” Darrah v. City of Oak Park held that a state court determination of probable cause did not preclude a subsequent malicious prosecution claim where the plaintiff alleged that “the defendantofficers had knowingly supplied the magistrate with false information in order to establish probable cause.” 255 F.3d at 311. Later in Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198, 202 (6th Cir. 2002), we applied Darrah to allow a plaintiff’s claim to proceed where she alleged that detectives supplied the No. 08-1035 Flowers v. City of Detroit, et al. Page 6 state court with “a false version of the facts.” And more recently, in Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557, 566 (6th Cir. 2007), we observed that the exception to the usual preclusive effect of a state court probable cause determination applies when there is evidence of a “police officer’s supplying false information to establish probable cause.” Flowers contends that Defendants’ failure to state in the warrant request that Rounds had made a previous statement (which included giving a false name and lying about her ability to identify Flowers) created a false impression as to Rounds’ credibility. But as the district court observed, Rounds’ previous statement, drug use, and changed story were all brought to light at the preliminary examination. An imperfect witness is not the same thing as a “false” witness. Apart from the challenge to how the Defendants portrayed Rounds, Flowers offers no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that they deliberately provided the judge with false information. Though Flowers characterizes the Defendants’ actions as “false,” the warrant request and transcript of the preliminary examination does not support this accusation. Flowers also argues that investigators left out evidence “that was so clearly exculpatory [as] to make the information provided to the judge false and incomplete.” Most troubling to Flowers is the omission from the warrant request of any reference to Jackson’s willingness to give a statement that he was with her at the time of the murder. He also maintains that the investigators should have included a witness’ account that she saw two men leaving in a light blue truck. But neither Darrah nor any of the cases to apply it held that the exception to issue preclusion applies by virtue of a lack of detail in a warrant request. To the contrary, this Court has held that “precision” in warrant requests “where there is probable cause to justify an arrest, is not a constitutional requirement.” No. 08-1035 Flowers v. City of Detroit, et al. Page 7 Peet, 502 F.3d at 565 n.2. Although in determining probable cause police officers may not “simply turn a blind eye toward potentially exculpatory evidence known to them in an effort to pin a crime on someone,” Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 371-72 (6th Cir. 1999), leaving out of a warrant request the fact that the accused’s fiancée is willing to offer an alibi does not otherwise negate probable cause. See Coogan v. Wixon, 820 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds, Frantz v. Village of Bradford, 245 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2001). And Defendant Newman testified that he delivered the entire homicide file along with the warrant request to the prosecutor for his review. Although in some cases material omissions from a warrant request may be so egregious as to make it “false” for purposes of establishing probable cause, the evidence here, even considered in the light most favorable to Flowers, does not support such a finding. Thus, despite Flowers’ characterization of Defendants’ conduct as “false,” Flowers failed to offer facts that demonstrate that this case fits within the Darrah exception for claims supported by evidence of false information.