Plaintiff was
accused of criminal sexual conduct by his step-daughter and bound over to face
the charges, but a mistrial was declared mid-trial when it was discovered that
defendant Michael Crum, the officer in charge of the investigation, had failed
to disclose a videotaped interview with the complainant. The prosecutor
ultimately decided not to re-try plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Crum and his
employer, the City of Berkley, in federal court, alleging various federal and
state law claims. The federal court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claims (false arrest, malicious prosecution, false
imprisonment, and gross negligence) and eventually granted summary judgment to
defendants on the federal claims (false arrest/imprisonment, malicious
prosecution, denial of due process, and failure to adequately train officers), concluding
that the existence of probable cause to arrest and charge plaintiff defeated
the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims, and that Crum was
entitled to qualified immunity because he did not act with reckless disregard
for the truth. Meanwhile, plaintiff sued defendants for the state law claims in
circuit court, but that court granted defendants’ motion for summary
disposition on the ground of collateral estoppel because of the federal
judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, over one
judge’s dissent regarding the gross negligence claim. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to address
whether the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition to defendants
on the ground of collateral estoppel.