Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a case arising from Willie Morrison’s detention, arrest, and vehicle search at the Horseshoe Casino. The court held that several secondary-employment police officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not personally participate in the challenged conduct, and that the evidence did not establish liability for the casino defendants. The court also upheld dismissal of the related state-law claims under Ohio governmental-immunity principles.

Holdings

1. Officers Tell, Allen, and Schulte were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence showed that they did not detain, arrest, or search Morrison or his vehicle and were merely present or involved in the initial effort to locate the suspect.
2. Officer Maye was shielded by qualified immunity because the officers had actual probable cause, and an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that the detention, arrest, search incident to arrest, and vehicle search were lawful.
3. Atlantis Security and Rock Ohio were not liable under § 1983 because the appellants failed to establish an underlying constitutional violation, and private entities cannot be held liable solely through respondeat superior or vicarious liability.
4. The individual officers were entitled to immunity under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6) because they acted within the scope of their official responsibilities and the record did not show malicious purpose, bad faith, wanton conduct, recklessness, or an express statutory basis for liability.
5. The state-law claims for false arrest and detention, assault and battery, conversion, and loss of consortium failed as a matter of law because the detention and searches were supported by probable cause, no excessive force or wrongful control was shown, and the derivative consortium claim lacked an underlying tort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants violated Morrison's Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by detaining, arresting, and searching him and his vehicle without probable cause.
2. Whether Officers Maye, Tell, Allen, and Schulte were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.
3. Whether Atlantis Security and Rock Ohio, and the casino employees, could be held liable under § 1983 or state-law vicarious-liability theories.
4. Whether the individual officers were entitled to statutory immunity under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6) for the state-law claims.
5. Whether the state-law claims for false arrest and detention, assault and battery, conversion, and loss of consortium could proceed.

Disposition

affirmed