Moreover, as discussed below, the SAC has sufficiently alleged a lack of probable cause such that a claim would also survive on this basis.Īnd the court held the same about the Fourth Amendment claim: This suggests that Rideout's retaliation claim falls within the exception outlined in Lozman and the motion to dismiss Count I is denied for this reason. The SAC further alleges that Defendants' investigation of him was initiated as a pretext to execute their plan to retaliate against him and intimidate him for exercising his First Amendment rights to protest Shelide. Rideout's SAC alleges that he was the only protestor at the Jprotest who was arrested, despite the fact that multiple protestors engaged in the same actions as he did. The second exception applies where 'a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been,' the existence of probable cause will not preclude a First Amendment retaliation claim. For the first exception to apply, the Supreme Court held that (1) there must be an 'official municipal policy of intimidation' (2) the municipality must have 'formed a premeditated plan' to retaliate against the plaintiff (3) the plaintiff must present 'objective evidence of a policy motivated by retaliation' (4) there must be 'little relation' between the protected speech and the offense that led to the arrest and (5) the protected speech must be 'high in the hierarchy of First Amendment values,' such as the freedom to petition. The court allowed plaintiff's First Amendment claim to go forward:Īlthough probable cause generally will defeat a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim, two exceptions exist where, as here, the defendant officers are being sued in their official capacity. I did see that he was, in fact, thanked by one of the police officers for that assistance.'Ĭ) 'I just did not feel that there was sufficient evidence under the circumstances to sustain the charge and to go to trial on the matter.' At one point, directing 6 them off of the roadway, and it did appear that he was at-at certain times assisting the police officers. It did seem like he was trying to control the crowd control the participants. Rideout, did discuss issues with the police officers involved. The video shows a-a number of times where the Defendant, Mr. After an evidentiary hearing, the state court judge dismissed the charges, ruling:Ī) 'I would note just as an aside, that I thought it was somewhat unusual-somewhat unusual for the Defendant ('Rideout') to be charged after the fact and arrested several days later rather than the date of the alleged incident, which typically would be the case and was the case on some of these other matters.'ī) 'As I've indicated, I spent a lot of time looking at the videos. In 2021, Rideout filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on a lack of probable cause and insufficient evidence. Despite this knowledge, Defendants colluded to omit this information from the presentation of evidence to the prosecutor and magistrate who issued the warrant. The SAC further alleges that Villa, the other Defendant officers, and Shelide were all aware at the time the arrest warrant was obtained that Rideout sought to cooperate with officers at the protest, asked for more time to disperse the crowd, and the officer on the ground granted that request. The SAC alleges that Defendant Ermir Villa's police report, which served as the basis for the warrant, was untruthful and failed to include exculpatory evidence. No other protester was arrested for their participation in the Jprotests/demonstrations. Laws § 257.602 (failure to comply with the order or direction of a police officer) and presented false or misleading facts to the prosecutor's office. Rideout alleges that Shelide and the police officer defendants colluded to conduct a pretextual investigation of his activities on Jto fabricate a misdemeanor charge of violating Mich. On the evening of July 20, 2020, local media interviewed Rideout, who criticized Shelide's return from suspension and called for his resignation.Īccording to the SAC, in response to Rideout's criticisms, the named Defendants worked together to retaliate against him for exercising his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. On July 1, 2020, July 15, 2020, and July 20, 2020, Rideout participated in protests against Shelide. On June 16, 2020, Chief Shelide was suspended for thirty days after having made multiple posts on a Twitter Account using a pseudonym supporting racist ideals and endorsing police brutality. This case arises from Rideout's arrest after a series of protests against the Shelby Township Chief of Police, Robert Shelide, a defendant here. From the decision earlier this month by Judge F.

Gary schwartz amazon