Background
Lee Roy Stallman contacted the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department for help obtaining his final paycheck and personal belongings from his former employer, Sweetland Transportation. After Deputy Darius Zajac initially responded, Stallman left voicemails threatening to follow Sweetland employees to their homes and other locations, including schools, and referenced a workplace shooting. Zajac warned Stallman not to call or return to the business.
The next day, Stallman followed Zajac back to Sweetland and stopped on a nearby road that was later determined to be public. Sweetland employees reported that Stallman was yelling and gesturing, and Zajac arrested him after a confrontation in which Stallman pulled away; Zajac used a Taser to subdue him. Stallman was charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, but the circuit court dismissed the charge after concluding that Zajac had not personally observed the disorderly conduct underlying the arrest. Stallman then sued Zajac for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He asserted vicarious-liability claims against the sheriff’s department and Oakland County, and a third-party-beneficiary claim against Oakland County alone based on its indemnification agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Zajac was entitled to individual governmental immunity. His decision to arrest Stallman was discretionary and made within the course and scope of his employment, and the record showed that he acted in good faith and honestly believed probable cause existed. The court emphasized that an officer’s reasonable mistake does not defeat immunity and concluded that the discrepancies in Zajac’s report and testimony did not demonstrate malice.
Alternatively, the court held that Stallman’s intentional-tort claims failed on the merits because the facts known to Zajac supplied probable cause to arrest Stallman for misdemeanor stalking, even though Zajac did not identify stalking as the basis for the arrest at the time. The court also held that Oakland County was immune from vicarious liability and that the indemnification claim could not produce a recovery because Stallman could not prevail against Zajac. It affirmed summary disposition for Oakland County, reversed the denial of summary disposition for Zajac, and remanded for entry of judgment for Zajac, Oakland County, and the sheriff’s department.
Key Takeaways
- An officer may receive governmental immunity for an intentional tort when the officer acted within the scope of authority, exercised discretion, and honestly believed in good faith that probable cause supported the arrest.
- Probable cause may rest on an offense different from the officer’s stated reason for arrest; here, Stallman’s voicemails and later conduct supplied probable cause for misdemeanor stalking.
- A governmental agency cannot be held vicariously liable when the employee committed no underlying tort and, independently, remains immune when the employee was performing a governmental function outside any statutory exception.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an unlawful or mistaken arrest determination in a criminal case from the separate civil questions of governmental immunity and objective probable cause. Dismissal of the criminal charge did not collaterally estop Zajac because he was not a party to, or in privity with the prosecution in, the criminal proceeding.
The opinion also illustrates that courts evaluating civil arrest claims may consider any offense supported by the facts known to the officer, not merely the offense announced during the arrest or listed in the initial report.