Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

AMANDA JEAN ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CITY OF DETROIT and WAYNE COUNTY, Defendants, and CHRISTINE KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 14, 2010

No. 293021 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 05-503671-NI

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and DONOFRIO, JJ. PER CURIAM. This matter is before this Court for the second time after the Michigan Supreme Court remanded it to the trial court for reconsideration whether defendant, a police officer, is immune from liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. See Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). On remand, the trial court denied defendant's motion for summary disposition ruling that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether defendant acted in "good faith." Defendant1 now appeals and we reverse. I. BASIC FACTS Our Supreme Court summarized the relevant and undisputed facts in Odom, 482 Mich at 462-464: [Defendant] investigated prostitution and controlled substances offenses in the department's "morality unit." At the time of the incident giving rise to the present case, she had 10 years' experience and had made more than 500 prostitution-

1

Defendants City of Detroit and Wayne County were dismissed from these proceedings and are not parties to this appeal.

-1-

related arrests. On February 11, 2004, she was conducting surveillance near the intersection of Woodward Avenue and Burlingame Street in the city of Detroit. Defendant claimed that plaintiff, Amanda Jean Odom, walked back and forth along Woodward while making eye contact with the drivers of cars passing by, a method used by prostitutes to attract the attention of potential customers. She observed plaintiff approach the driver's side window of a car parked in a liquor store parking lot and then enter the back seat. The car drove to a nearby grocery store; plaintiff went inside for approximately five minutes and returned to the car, which then drove away. After contacting her supervisor and calling for backup, defendant followed the car down Woodward Avenue and into a residential area. Detroit police officers stopped the car at a point that, as it turned out, was only two blocks from plaintiff's home. The officers drew their guns and ordered plaintiff and the two female passengers out of the vehicle. The women were all handcuffed and questioned. Upon being stopped, plaintiff asserted her innocence. She explained that her friend had driven her home from her place of employment and showed that she was still wearing her work identification badge. She further explained that her friend had dropped her off at a bank and driven around the block. However, plaintiff explained that she could not enter the bank because the police were apparently stopping a robbery in progress. She looked north and south before sighting her friend's car in a nearby parking lot. Plaintiff walked to the car, entered the back seat, and was driven to a grocery store, where she used the ATM and purchased some groceries. After relating her version of events to the officers, plaintiff overheard one officer tell defendant, "Well it's your call." Defendant issued plaintiff a criminal citation for "Disorderly Conduct (Flagging) Impeding the Flow of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic"--an offense frequently associated with prostitution. Plaintiff claims that, when she objected to the citation, defendant became angry and told her to "fight it." Plaintiff was ordered to appear for arraignment one week later. When she appeared, however, the district court had no record of the citation. Plaintiff contacted both the Detroit Police Department and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department to determine the status of the charges against her. Upon learning that the record of plaintiff's citation had been lost, defendant issued a new citation and had the charges reinstated. When plaintiff appeared for arraignment a second time in June 2004, the court required her to attend an AIDS awareness class for sex offenders. The case was postponed several times between June and December 2004. The prosecution finally dismissed the charges on December 6, 2004, because of insufficient evidence. The dismissal order indicated that the parties stipulated to the existence of probable cause. Neither plaintiff nor her counsel signed the dismissal form, and plaintiff denies that she made such a stipulation.

-2-

In February 2005, plaintiff brought this action against defendant, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Defendant sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of individual governmental immunity. The trial court initially denied summary disposition and this Court affirmed that decision. Odom v Wayne Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 1, 2007 (Docket No. 270501). Plaintiff then appealed this Court's decision to our Supreme Court. The Court granted leave to appeal in order to clarify the effect and applicability of the GTLA as it pertained to intentional-tort claims. Odom, 482 Mich at 466. The Court held that under

Download AMANDA JEAN ODOM V CITY OF DETROIT.pdf

Michigan Law