Kanode v. Columbus

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City of Columbus and Richard Wozniak in consolidated malicious-prosecution actions brought by Holly Kanode and Phillip Walls. The court held that political-subdivision immunity applied to the city, Wozniak was entitled to employee immunity, and the plaintiffs’ claims independently failed because probable cause supported the criminal charges. The appeals arose from prosecutions related to the plaintiffs’ conduct as Columbus police officers during 2020 protests.

Holdings

1. The City of Columbus was immune under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), and R.C. 2744.09(B) did not apply because appellants' malicious-prosecution claims arose from the city's prosecutorial functions rather than directly from their employment relationship.
2. Wozniak was entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) because appellants did not identify evidence that he acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.
3. The malicious-prosecution claims failed because probable cause existed when the criminal proceedings against Walls and Kanode were initiated.
4. Probable cause existed to charge Walls with assault and the related offenses because he knowingly deployed mace toward individuals, creating sufficient grounds to believe he knowingly attempted to cause physical harm and violated duties imposed on a public servant.
5. Probable cause existed to charge Kanode with falsification because her repeated statements that Lynch pulled Officer Dye to the ground were contradicted by video evidence and were sufficient to support a belief that she knowingly made a false statement for the purpose of incriminating another.

Questions Presented

1. Whether political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) applied to the City of Columbus and whether the employment-relationship exception in R.C. 2744.09(B) applied.
2. Whether Richard Wozniak was entitled to employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), including whether the exception for malicious purpose, bad faith, wanton conduct, or reckless conduct applied.
3. Whether appellants established a lack of probable cause for their malicious-prosecution claims.
4. Whether probable cause existed for the specific offenses charged against Walls and Kanode.

Disposition

affirmed