Where a complaint has been filed against a defendant city and its police chief, the complaint must be dismissed because the police chief is entitled to qualified immunity and the city may not be held liable for her actions.
“Daniel and Linda Lupu bring this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law against the City of Ovid and Ovid Police Chief Lisa Rousseau. Plaintiffs assert that Rousseau abused her powers as police chief while conducting a baseless investigation into whether a fire at Plaintiffs’ home was caused by arson. Plaintiffs assert a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim, a First Amendment retaliation claim, a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, and a state-law defamation claim. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Rousseau violated the Fourth Amendment, but did not violate the Due Process Clause, the First Amendment, or Michigan defamation law; Rousseau is entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Fourth Amendment claim; and the City may not be held liable for Rousseau’s Fourth Amendment violation. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. …
“Plaintiffs claim that Rousseau violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting a warrantless search and seizure of their property. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that (1) Rousseau violated the Fourth Amendment, but (2) Rousseau is entitled to qualified immunity, and (3) the City may not be held liable for Rousseau’s actions. Thus, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim. …
“Here, undisputed facts establish that Rousseau entered the curtilage of Plaintiffs’ home. …
“The Court also agrees with Plaintiffs that Rousseau seized their property when she stopped Ameri-Pro from working and barred anyone from entering the home. …
“To summarize: Daniel did not consent to the search and seizure of his home, and the exigency exception does not apply because the seizure lasted an unjustifiably long time and no probable cause existed. Thus, Rousseau’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. …
“The Court finds that Rousseau is entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons. First, while the Court held above that Daniel did not consent to Rousseau’s actions, it finds that the lack of consent was not clearly established as a matter of law. …
“Second, it was not clearly established that no probable cause existed to justify Rousseau’s search under the exigency exception. …
“Even though the facts outlined above do not create probable cause, they do provide enough circumstantial evidence of foul play that Rousseau’s belief in the existence of probable cause was a reasonable mistake. Plaintiffs do not cite, and the Court has not found, any case law clearly establishing that probable cause did not exist in an analogous scenario. … For this reason, Rousseau is not liable for the initial search and seizure.
“Thus, Rousseau is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, and that claim will be dismissed. …
“In short, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the City of Ovid is liable for Rousseau’s constitutional violations, so the Fourth Amendment claim against the City will be dismissed. …
“As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim against Rousseau is barred by qualified immunity, their Fourth Amendment claim against the City of Ovid is barred by the municipal liability doctrine, and they have established no other violation of law. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts.”