Summary
This federal district court opinion denies a Michigan State Police trooper's motion for summary judgment in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Sean MacMaster. The plaintiff alleges that the trooper, along with a former prosecutor and his ex-wife, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by securing search and arrest warrants based on false statements and omitted exculpatory evidence regarding child abuse allegations. The court examines the factual record regarding the trooper's conduct, qualified immunity, and the presence of genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Busacca is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged Fourth Amendment violations.
- Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the Fourth Amendment, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy claims.
Holdings
- Busacca is not entitled to qualified immunity; the court denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims.
- Summary judgment is denied; the plaintiff may proceed on the malicious prosecution claim.
- Summary judgment is denied; the civil conspiracy claim may proceed.
Key quotations
“A warrant cannot be issued without a showing of probable cause.”
“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a §1983 claim.”
Factual background
Sean MacMaster was accused by his ex‑wife of sexually abusing their daughter, allegations later found unreliable by multiple investigations. Michigan State Police trooper David Busacca obtained search and arrest warrants based on those allegations, omitting exculpatory evidence he had reviewed. The warrants were executed, yielding no child sexual abuse material, and the criminal case was later dismissed.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a §1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violations, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court denied the motion.