Background
After leaving his job with Sweetland Transportation, Lee Roy Stallman contacted the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department for help obtaining his final paycheck and personal belongings. Deputy Darius Zajac responded. Later that day, Stallman left voicemails threatening to follow Sweetland employees to their homes, schools, and other locations and referring ominously to a workplace shooting. Zajac told Stallman to stop contacting the business and warned him not to return.
The next day, Stallman followed Zajac back toward Sweetland and stopped on a nearby road that was later determined to be public. After employees reported that Stallman was yelling and gesturing, Zajac approached and arrested him. Stallman resisted, and Zajac used a Taser before handcuffing him. Prosecutors charged Stallman with resisting or obstructing an officer, but the circuit court dismissed the charge after concluding that Zajac had not lawfully arrested him for an offense committed in his presence. Stallman then sued Zajac, the sheriff’s department, and Oakland County for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability, and third-party-beneficiary relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Zajac was entitled to individual governmental immunity under the test governing intentional torts by public employees. His actions occurred during his employment, he reasonably believed he was acting within his authority, and the decision to arrest involved discretion. The record also established good faith: given Stallman’s threatening voicemails, his return to the vicinity, the employees’ apparent fear, and his conduct when approached, Zajac honestly believed probable cause supported an arrest. An officer’s reasonable mistake about probable cause does not defeat immunity.
Alternatively, the court held that Stallman’s claims failed on their merits. Although Zajac did not initially identify stalking as the arrest’s basis, the known facts supplied probable cause for misdemeanor stalking, which defeated the false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims. Zajac’s conduct also was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support intentional infliction of emotional distress. The criminal court’s earlier probable-cause ruling did not collaterally estop Zajac because he was not a party to, or in privity with the prosecution in, the criminal case.
The court further held that Oakland County was immune from vicarious liability because Zajac was performing a governmental function and no statutory exception applied. The indemnification agreement could not support recovery because Stallman had no viable judgment against Zajac. The court affirmed summary disposition for Oakland County, reversed the denial of summary disposition for Zajac, and remanded for entry of judgment for all three defendants, including the sheriff’s department.
Key Takeaways
- An officer may receive governmental immunity for an intentional tort when the officer acts within the scope of employment, exercises discretion, and honestly and in good faith believes probable cause exists, even if that belief is mistaken.
- Probable cause may rest on an offense different from the officer’s stated reason for arrest; here, the known circumstances supported misdemeanor stalking.
- A probable-cause determination in a criminal case did not collaterally estop the arresting deputy in the later civil action because the deputy was neither a party to the criminal prosecution nor in privity with the prosecutor.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the objective probable-cause inquiry from the good-faith inquiry governing an officer’s individual immunity. A later ruling that an arrest was unlawful does not by itself establish malice or eliminate immunity.
The opinion also underscores the breadth of governmental immunity for municipalities facing vicarious-liability claims arising from police activity and confirms that an indemnification agreement creates no practical avenue for recovery when the plaintiff cannot obtain a judgment against the employee.