Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCallum v. Geelhood

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 31, 2017

ANTHONY MCCALLUM, ELAINE MCCALLUM, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEPHEN GEELHOOD, AMY MATELIC, BRYAN WATSON, STEVEN RILEY, LARRY BARNETT, DAVID HANSBERRY, GREGORY TOURVILLE, DETROIT, CITY OF, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#25] AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#29]

          HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD, JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

         Anthony McCallum and wife, Elaine McCallum, sued Detroit Police Officers Stephen Geelhood, Amy Matelic, Bryan Watson, Steven Riley, David Hansberry, Gregory Tourville, and the City of Detroit for malicious prosecution and municipal liability in violation of 42 USC § 1983. The individuals were members of a now defunct Detroit Police Narcotics Unit. There are two named Plaintiffs, but only Plaintiff Anthony McCallum filed a summary judgment motion against Defendant Matelic. She responded by filing a cross motion for summary judgment claiming she is entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. # 29)

         On April 25, 2013, Matelic wrote an affidavit in support of a search warrant for Plaintiff's residence on 16421 E. State Fair in Detroit. (Doc. 25-1) The affidavit stated:

On 4/25/13, Affiant (Matelic) working with P.O Geelhood received confidential information from a credible and reliable confidential informant regarding illegal narcotics, which are being stored and sold form 16241 E, State Fair in the City of Detroit and County of Wayne, Michigan. This confidential informant has provided information in the past regarding illegal narcotic trafficking on at least (3) prior occasions resulting in the confiscations of large amounts of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, firearms and narcotic proceeds. Through the efforts of this confidential informant, P.O. Geelhood has cases pending in 36th District and 3rd Circuit Courts. The confidential informant stated that he/she was inside of 16421 E. State Fair with an unwitting person during the past 48 hours and observed large amounts of cocaine being sold and stored within. On 4/25/13, Affiant and P.O. Geelhood conducted surveillance at the above location. During the course of 35 minutes, Affiant observed (3) suspected buyers . . . on separate occasions, walk up and drive up to the location, knock, engage in a brief conversation with the above SELLER, and then enter 16421 E. State Fair. The suspected buyers would remain inside of the location for approximately 2-3 minutes and then leave the location. Affiant did not stop suspected buyers due to the fact it may compromise the investigation.

(Doc. 25-1 at 1)

         Thirty-Sixth district court Magistrate Judge Barthwell issued a search warrant for 16421 E. State Fair. The warrant identified a “Suspected Seller” who was to be searched as a “B/M/35-40 5'10/180 with a possible street name of ‘Dre.'” (Doc. 25-1 at 2) The warrant also identified “Dark Blue Ford F150 Pickup with rims” to be searched. Id.

         Officers executed the search warrant and found drugs. However, they did not find a Ford F-150, and the man they arrested did not match the description of “Dre.” McCallum was 46 years old, 5'4” and 165 pounds. Plaintiffs note that during the arrest and raid Officers Geelhood and Lieutenant Hansberry kept asking Plaintiffs where was Dre, clearly indicating that they knew Mr. McCallum was not “Dre.”

         McCallum challenged the warrant; a Franks hearing was held. During the hearing regarding the affidavit, Defendant Matelic and the court engaged in the following exchange:

THE COURT: . . . I'm looking at your affidavit here and it says affiant, that's you, working with PO Gill Hood (sic) received confidential information from a credible and reliable confidential informant regarding illegal narcotics, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, as I understand your testimony, you did not actually receive the information from the informant?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Your affidavit seems to suggest that you did receive it together with Gill Hood (sic). But you mean to say Gill Hood (sic) got it from the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.