Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Clark County’s prosecuting attorney and a deputy prosecutor won summary judgment in federal court on Friday, with a judge finding that a man’s arrest for crimes he did not commit were the result of misstatements made by his brother, not the actions of the prosecutors.
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued the order, which granted summary judgment to Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Jeremy Mull and deputy prosecutor Andrew Steele, who are defendants in the case.
The case involves two brothers, Mark and Brenden White.
According to court records, in several encounters with police, Mark misidentified himself as his brother. That included on Jan. 24, 2020, when Mark was arrested in Clark County for residential entry and possessing a syringe.
After the first criminal case was filed, Brenden learned that he was the one who had been charged as a result of the Jan. 24, 2020, arrest, not his brother. Brenden was aware that Mark knew his personally identifying information, with Mark telling him that he had warrants out for his arrest, so he identified himself as Brenden instead.
While Brenden told Indiana State Police that “someone used [his] name in a case,” he did not call the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office to report the misidentification.
Then on Feb. 12, 2020, Mark was again arrested, this time for shoplifting, and again gave Brenden’s name. Brenden was subsequently charged with one count of felony theft and one count of misdemeanor theft.
Brenden was assigned a public defender, Jennifer Harmeyer, who discovered that “the person [she] had been interacting with was in fact Mark Anthony White.”
She contacted Steele, the deputy prosecutor on the case, to explain “that the person holding [himself] out to be [Brenden White] was in fact Mark Anthony White.” Steele then he instructed his investigator to look into the potential misidentification.
On April 2, 2020, Brenden was charged with one count of misdemeanor criminal trespass and one count of misdemeanor unauthorized motor vehicle entry after Mark used his name for a third time.
When the misidentification was confirmed, Brenden was ultimately released and the misidentified criminal cases were dismissed.
Nearly two years later, Brenden filed a state-court complaint against Mull and Steele. The case was removed to federal court, and Brenden pursued claims for a Fourth Amendment violation, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
Mull and Steele moved for summary judgment, arguing as to the federal claim that they are entitled to prosecutorial and/or qualified immunity.
The district court agreed.
Brenden had argued he was injured because Mull and Steele did not promptly dismiss the charges against him.
“But in Indiana, a prosecutor is ‘vested … with the discretion to dismiss pending charges,’” Magnus-Stinson wrote, citing Holvoet v. State, 689 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
“… Even if the conduct causing injury was Deputy Prosecutor Steele’s ‘investigation’ into the potential misidentification,” she continued, “he would still be entitled to prosecutorial immunity.”
According to Magnus-Stinson, upon receiving booking photographs, Steele’s “investigation” was simply his evaluation of the evidence in preparation for a judicial proceeding, whether that proceeding was preparing for trial or dismissing Brenden’s cases.
“These actions are within the scope of a prosecutor’s functions, for which the State Defendants are entitled to prosecutorial immunity,” Magnus-Stinson wrote. She added that Mull “enjoys prosecutorial immunity for an alleged policy of failing to train deputy prosecutors on case evaluation or not providing deputy prosecutors with discretion to dismiss cases.”
As for qualified immunity, “Deputy Prosecutor Steele’s conduct did not violate a clearly established law,” the judge wrote.
Likewise, “It was not clearly established — and Brenden White cites no closely analogous case — that Prosecutor Mull’s actions amounted to the knowledge or deliberate, reckless indifference necessary for him to be held individually liable.”
Turning to the state-law claims, Magnus-Stinson first found that the balance of factors weighed in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
She then agreed with Mull and Steele’s argument that, under Indiana common law and the Indiana Tort Claims Act, they are entitled to absolute immunity because they acted within the scope of their authority as prosecutors.
“Even if an exception for willful and wanton misconduct applies to some cases, it does not apply to the circumstances of this case,” she concluded. “The State Defendants are immune to Brenden White’s state claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.”
The case is Brenden Marnae White v. Jeremy T. Mull, Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew Steele, Deputy Prosecutor, 4:22-cv-00028.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.