Background
A Michigan jury convicted Kevin Lackey in 1993 of criminal sexual conduct and breaking and entering arising from the alleged sexual assault of an eleven-year-old girl. The victim described a slim young man with facial hair, yellow pants, and black gym shoes. A police dog tracked from the victim’s backyard to Lackey, who lived nearby and substantially matched the description. Lackey served 22 years before the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office agreed to vacate his convictions because of profound defects in the dog-tracking evidence and declined to retry him.
Lackey sued the investigating officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they fabricated the assailant’s description, maliciously prosecuted him, and suppressed exculpatory evidence. The district court granted summary judgment to Officers L.T. Hurley, Roslyn Beard, Willie Smith, and Joseph Burton based on qualified immunity. Lackey settled separately with the estate of K-9 Officer William Penn and appealed the judgment for the four remaining officers.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Lackey’s Fourteenth Amendment fabrication claims failed because he could not show that the alleged fabrications likely affected the jury’s verdict. The victim’s mother independently testified that the victim had described the assailant as black, Hurley did not testify at trial, and Smith’s report referring to a “blue steel handgun” was neither presented through his trial testimony nor relevant to any charged offense.
The Fourth Amendment fabrication and malicious-prosecution claims failed because probable cause supported every charge even without the allegedly fabricated racial description. Lackey matched other elements of the description, lived directly behind the victim’s home, and was identified through the canine track. His Brady claim also failed because the officers disclosed photographs and reports containing the underlying information from which the defense could argue that the prosecution’s theory was implausible. An additional claim involving the victim’s father was forfeited because Lackey had not pleaded or defended it at summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A Fourteenth Amendment evidence-fabrication claim requires proof that knowingly fabricated evidence likely affected the factfinder’s decision.
- Fourth Amendment fabrication and malicious-prosecution claims fail when probable cause remains after the challenged evidence is removed from consideration.
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence, but it does not require officers to formulate defense arguments from information already disclosed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that vacatur of a conviction—even after decades of imprisonment—does not itself establish civil liability under § 1983. A plaintiff must connect each officer’s conduct to a specific constitutional violation and, depending on the claim, demonstrate materiality or the absence of probable cause.
For practitioners, the opinion also underscores the importance of preserving each theory in the complaint and at summary judgment. The court declined to consider Lackey’s alternative-suspect Brady theory because it had not been timely developed below.