Connie L. Reguli, et al. v. Tracy Hetzel, et al.

The ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness”. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381 (2014) And “probable cause” is the underpinning of a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017). While case law recognizes that state actors cannot fabricate probable cause with false evidence or false testimony, the Sixth Circuit has created a doctrinal escape hatch for state actors who intentionally fabricate a crime to cause the arrest and prosecution of innocent citizens by characterizing their pursuit of prosecution as a mistake of law. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014)

1. If probable cause of criminal conduct is required, then this Court must determine the limitations of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” when state actors fabricate a crime by knowingly and intentionally removing an essential element from the statutory language. This case illustrates the importance of the specific-crime doctrine of Chiaverini and requires clarification on Heien’s mistake of law analysis. Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024).

2. Whether prosecutorial immunity can protect prosecutors who intentionally prepare an indictment fabricating a crime by rewriting the statutory language and removing an essential element of the crime knowing that the citizen’s conduct does not rise to a criminal offense? Under Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), absolute prosecutorial immunity is reserved for actions in which the prosecutor acts as an advocate for the state. Buckley made it clear that a prosecutor is not an advocate for the state before they have probable cause of criminal conduct.

3. Whether, in a Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12 review, the tribunal can sua sponte insert legal arguments not briefed, and alter the facts plead by the Plaintiffs to fashion absolute and qualified immunity while avoiding well-established case law and arguments made by the Plaintiff/Appellants sheering away Fourth Amendment rights for future litigants? This Court has established that it is essential that parties have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues and in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by a final decision upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 108 (1976)