United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Anthony P. Patti Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. MICHELSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
data-entry error in the expiration date of a personal
protection order (PPO) led to Joseph Scott's wrongful
arrest and imprisonment. When the two divorced, Coralee Scott
obtained the PPO against Scott. In the County of St. Clair,
these orders are entered into a law-enforcement database.
Jeanette Thompson was tasked with entering Coralee's. The
order was to expire in six months, but Thompson mistakenly
entered a one-year expiration date. Eleven months later,
Gerard Peczeniuk, a police officer for the City of Port
Huron, pulled Scott over for not wearing his seatbelt. With
Scott was Coralee. Peczeniuk ran a license check in the
database, and it showed a valid order protecting Coralee from
Scott. When Peczeniuk inquired into the PPO, Scott and
Coralee both stressed that the order had expired. So
Peczeniuk called dispatch. At dispatch, Scott Talmadge
examined a copy of the order and verified it. But Talmadge
did not look at the expiration date. Based on the database
and the validation from dispatch, Peczeniuk arrested Scott.
Scott ended up spending three days in jail before the whole
issue was sorted out.
then filed this suit (actually two suits) against Thompson,
Peczeniuk, Talmadge and others asserting, primarily, that he
was unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment
of the Constitution. Defendants primarily argue that they
cannot be held liable because they carried out their official
duties in a reasonable manner. Defendants thus assert that
they are entitled to summary judgment. (See Case No.
15-11773, R. 16; Case No. 16-11874, R. 17.)
Court has carefully reviewed the summary-judgment record and
finds that oral argument will not aid in resolving the
parties' dispute. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f).
Scott's arrest was unfortunate. But the Court believes
that Defendants acted reasonably in carrying out their
official duties. Mostly for that reason, Defendants are not
liable to Scott.
Defendants say that no reasonable jury could find for Scott,
the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to
Scott. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
morning of May 30, 2013, Scott and his ex-wife, Coralee
Scott, were on their way to pay Scott's water bill and
then to get breakfast or lunch. (R. 17, PID 126,
144.) Gerard Peczeniuk, a City of Port Huron
police officer, noticed that Scott was driving without his
seatbelt, so he pulled Scott over. (See R. 17, PID
128, 145; Case No. 15-11773, Peczeniuk Video at 10:11.)
Peczeniuk obtained Scott's license and insurance
information and returned to his police cruiser to run a check
on the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). (R. 17,
PID 128, 314; Peczeniuk Video at 10:12.) The LEIN check
showed a “personal protection order on file.” (R.
17, PID 314.)
had sought the PPO on the day of her divorce from Scott, June
15, 2012. (R. 17, PID 124, 142, 150-51.) In her PPO request,
Coralee asserted that Scott had “threatened [her]
life” and was “verbally abusive.” (R. 17,
PID 151.) (At her deposition, Coralee said that several
statements in her PPO request were false or misworded. (R.
17, PID 142-43.)) Despite the PPO, Coralee testified that the
two remained “friends” after their divorce (R.
17, PID 144) and Scott testified that the two remained
romantically involved (R. 17, PID 127). According to Scott,
at the time of his encounter with Peczeniuk, the two were
seeing each other “every day.” (R. 17, PID 127.)
completing the LEIN check on his computer, Peczeniuk returned
to the Scotts' car. This conversation ensued:
PECZENIUK: What is your name ma'am?
CORALEE: Coralee Scott
PECZENIUK: Okay. Uh, do you have a personal protection order
CORALEE: -Nope. No, that expired a long, long time.
SCOTT: No, that's a long time ago.
SCOTT: Oh yeah-
SCOTT: I know it's expired.
PECZENIUK: Okay, I will be back with you.
Video at 10:14.)
then returned to his cruiser and radioed dispatch for the
County of St. Clair. He provided Scott's information
(full name, sex, race, and date of birth). (Peczeniuk Video
at 10:15.) Scott Talmadge, a dispatcher with the County,
radioed back. Due to unknown issues with the videos, only
part of Peczeniuk and Talmadge's conversation was
recorded. Based on what is available, Talmadge told
Peczeniuk, “I have the order in hand, it has been
served. It does show he is not supposed to have contact with
her.” (Case No. 15-11773, Coleman Video at
then returned to the Scotts' car and proceeded to arrest
Scott. (Peczeniuk Video at 10:22.) During the arrest,
Peczeniuk and Coralee had a conversation that was in part
recorded; Peczeniuk is heard saying, “You gotta go get
the PPO removed ma'am. [Inaudible response from Coralee.]
At the courthouse right there, yeah.” (Coleman Video at
securing Scott in his cruiser, Peczeniuk returned to the
Scotts' vehicle to talk with Coralee. The police video
reflects the following:
PECZENIUK: You're the owner of the car, right?
PECZENIUK: Yep. Okay.
CORALEE: So I just go here to the courthouse-
PECZENIUK: -yep, you go down to the courthouse but as of
right now [inaudible] June 18.
CORALEE: -really? My lawyer told us January. My lawyer is
PECZENIUK: -right [inaudible, apparently references his
“computer”] . . . we have a hardcopy at our
(Coleman Video at 10:24.)
their depositions, although both indicated that the
conversation occurred before Scott's arrest, Scott and
Coralee testified that they told Peczeniuk that Coralee's
lawyer was across the street and had a copy of the PPO. In
particular, Coralee recalled, “I said, excuse me,
officer, if you'll just give me a couple minutes, my
lawyer's just right here and I will go and get a copy of
it and show you that it's no longer [valid]. . . . I
said, if you'll just give me a minute, my lawyer, Mike
Bushar (phonetic), is just right here across the way, and I
will go get a copy of the PPO.” (R. 17, PID 145.) Scott
similarly recalled, “I says, no, I don't have [a
PPO] against me. [The officer says, ] Yes, you do, you're
under arrest. And [Coralee] had said to him, no, he
doesn't have one. It's been expired. She said, my
attorney is across the street. I can get the papers and show
it to you. He said, No, just sit in the car. He's going
to jail. And he handcuffed me and took me in the cop
car.” (R. 17, PID 128.)
the drive to the jail, Scott experienced a panic attack, so
Peczeniuk took him to the hospital. (R. 17, PID 128, 130.)
After Scott was medically cleared, Peczeniuk proceeded to the
jail. (R. 17, PID 130.) Scott ended up staying in jail for
three days. (See R. 17, PID 131, 350.)
turned out that Scott and Coralee were right: the PPO had
reason the LEIN informed Peczeniuk that the PPO was not
expired was because of a data-entry error. In the County of
St. Clair, after a judge enters a PPO, a copy of the order is
brought (or faxed) to the County of St. Clair Central
Dispatch Authority. (R. 17, PID 169-70.) One of the
dispatchers, who is also responsible for answering calls,
then manually enters the PPO into the LEIN. (R. 17, PID 174,
217, 221, 257.) The expiration date is typed in only once.
(R. 17, PID 181, 199.) After that process is complete, the
hardcopy is then handed over to another dispatcher (the
parties refer to this person as the “second-party
checker”), who calls up the entry in the LEIN and
checks the entered data against the hardcopy. (See
R. 17, PID 185, 219, 221-23, 261.) The hardcopy is then kept
in a physical file at dispatch until the system informs the
dispatchers that the PPO is expired. (R. 17, PID 192, 223-24,
263.) At that point, a dispatcher pulls the PPO and sends it
back to the court. (R. 17, PID 223-24.)
day that Coralee's PPO was brought over to dispatch,
Jeanette Thompson was the dispatcher tasked with entering
PPOs. (See R. 17, PID 180.) She mistakenly entered
Coralee's PPO as expiring in one year, June 18, 2013. (R.
17, PID 237.) In fact, the PPO had an expiration date of six
months, December 18, 2012. (R. 17, PID 155.) When later asked
how the date got entered incorrectly, Thompson testified,
“Probably because I was busy and I entered it in
incorrectly.” (R. 17, PID 180.) Notably, only four
dispatchers were working at the time, and, on average,
dispatch received 700 to 800 calls in a 24-hour period. (R.
17, PID 174, 216.) Also, although she did not attribute ...