Malicious prosecution, gross negligence and false imprisonment claims dismissed
A City of Detroit Police officer, Stephen Pardo, was charged with planting a gun on a criminal suspect. The investigating officers interviewed one witness who appeared to corroborate the claim and the Prosecuting Attorney authorized the issuance of a warrant. Shortly after Pardo was arrested, however, additional witnesses were interviewed, the suspect's claims were brought into disrepute and the charges against Pardo were dropped.
Pardo filed suit, alleging that a proper and thorough investigation would have obviated any basis for charging him criminally. The Court dismissed Pardo's claims on immunity grounds, finding that since probable cause existed for his arrest, he could not take legal action against the charging and investigating authorities--even if their investigation was negligent or inadequate. Given the existence of an apparently corroborating witness for the complainant's allegations, there was "reasonable basis" to charge Pardo, even though that basis was later undermined.