Federal Court Dismisses Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Arrest During Shots-Fired Call

Haider Kazim and Matt Cross, partners in our Traverse City office, recently obtained a decisive ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of several law enforcement officers and a county government, ending a civil rights lawsuit stemming from a 2021 arrest during a high-risk response to a shots-fired call.

The case arose from an incident in a rural northern Michigan county where officers responded to a 911 call reporting gunfire and shouting. Upon arrival, officers encountered the plaintiff, a confrontational individual who refused to cooperate with their investigation. The situation escalated quickly, with the plaintiff physically resisting officers, resulting in her arrest. The plaintiff was later charged with resisting and obstructing police, though the charges were eventually dismissed. Following the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit alleging excessive force, false arrest, failure to intervene, and municipal liability under Monell for inadequate training and supervision.

The court’s opinion emphasized the importance of evaluating law enforcement actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene—not with the benefit of hindsight. The judge noted that officers often face tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations, and their decisions must be assessed accordingly. The Court’s key findings included:

• Probable Cause Was Established: The court ruled that the arrest was supported by probable cause, as previously determined in a state court preliminary hearing. This finding barred the plaintiff from relitigating the issue in federal court.
• Force Was Reasonable: The officers’ use of force was deemed objectively reasonable given the circumstances. The court found no evidence of gratuitous or excessive physical contact, especially considering the plaintiff’s resistance during the arrest.
• Qualified Immunity Applied: Even if any constitutional violations had occurred, the court held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
• No Municipal Liability: The county was not found liable under Monell, as there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct or deliberate indifference in training or supervision.

This ruling reinforces the legal protections afforded to officers who act reasonably in high-stakes situations. It also underscores the importance of qualified immunity and the rigorous standards plaintiffs must meet to hold municipalities liable under federal civil rights laws. For law enforcement agencies and officers, this decision is a strong affirmation of the principle that courts must consider the realities of policing—not just courtroom hindsight—when evaluating claims of misconduct.

Haider Kazim is an Equity Partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, FOIA/OMA, tax tribunal practice, employment law, property law, law enforcement and defense, and insurance defense. He represents and defends municipalities throughout Michigan in zoning and land use disputes, ordinance enforcement actions, employment claims involving allegations of discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing, claims arising under FOIA and OMA, and general municipal law. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or hkazim@cmda-law.com. 

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.