Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

JARRELL HART and KONRAD DESHAWN MONTGOMERY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v OFFICER DANAK, OFFICER BALL, OFFICER SHAHEEN, OFFICER FARNHAM, OFFICER BARTOK, OFFICER YAMIN, and OFFICER DAVID ALVIS, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED April 8, 2010

No. 280975 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-615921-CZ

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Meter and Fort Hood, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. We affirm. After Christmas shopping at a clothing store in Dearborn, plaintiffs were in a parking lot behind the retail store. Police received a 911 call from a shopper indicating that four men in the parking lot were breaking into cars in the parking lot. The caller indicated that two of the men were wearing mustard colored jackets, one was wearing a green hooded sweatshirt, and the fourth was in a black jacket. The two taller men were wearing the mustard jackets. The caller described the two vehicles that the men were standing near as a "300 M" and a Neon. It was further reported that the caller's wife saw the men break into one vehicle in the parking lot, and she believed that the men were taking items from a car. The caller provided his name and telephone number and agreed to wait nearby to speak to police. A police officer pulled into the parking lot and saw a group of men scatter and dodge between vehicles in a manner that indicated they were trying to evade the police. This officer found plaintiffs slouched down in a vehicle and reported that the men engaged in "furtive" gestures. Specifically, plaintiff Montgomery was observed with his hand at his waistband, and the men would not place their hands in the air. The clothing of the men matched the description

-1-

provided by the 911 caller. Plaintiffs admitted that they were attempting to hide from view.1 Additional officers were called in because plaintiffs refused to exit the vehicle, and the police officers forcibly removed them. Two weapons were found, one on the person of plaintiff Montgomery and one in the vehicle.2 Although charges were brought by the prosecutor's office, the circuit court dismissed them. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and racial intimidation. Following defendants' motion for summary disposition, the trial court held that there was a valid basis for the arrest and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. Specifically, the transcript provides that the trial court ruled: ... This is not a probable cause to arrest. This is in classic terms a Terry Stop. The police ... ha[d] a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. ... They had a right to take action with respect to the knowledge that they had. *** Therefore, the officers when they arrived at the parking lot, and confronted the two suspects in the one car, were lawfully at what the Court and Terry called the looking posts. They, therefore, had a right to seek cooperation from the Defendants, and examine the documents that they did examine. But during the course of the examination, other things happened. And that lead to what the officers then were able to determine was opposing and resisting. And, therefore, I find that there was no false arrests, there was no false imprisonment. There was no malicious prosecution. There was no assault and battery from which a police officer is immune in the

Download JARRELL HART V DEARBORN POLICE OFFICERS.pdf

Michigan Law