The exact seizure
A stop, arrest, booking, warrant seizure, post-process detention and incarceration are not one event or one legal theory.
Probable Cause Must Match The Complete Record
“Wrongful arrest” is the common phrase. The viable legal theory may be false arrest, unreasonable seizure, warrant-based detention, malicious prosecution, or another claim supported by the precise process and facts.
An arrest without a lawful basis may support a civil-rights claim, but a dismissal or acquittal alone does not prove the arrest was unlawful. The review looks at what officers knew, any warrant, and the basis for each period of detention. Pending charges, immunity defenses, and filing deadlines also need attention.
A stop, arrest, booking, warrant seizure, post-process detention and incarceration are not one event or one legal theory.
Probable cause is tested against the information available, including reliable and unreliable sources, contradictory facts, omissions and the total circumstances.
Dismissal, acquittal, suppression, mistaken identity, a bad report, lack of conviction, or detention length does not automatically prove wrongful arrest. Separate the stop, arrest, warrant, booking, prosecution, conviction, force and search questions first.
It costs nothing to find out where you stand.
The goal is to identify the exact seizure, what each actor knew, the supporting and contradictory evidence, how legal process began, what happened afterward, and which theory current law permits.
Dispatch, witness and complainant information, reports, recordings, observations, communications and contradictory evidence are placed in time.
Affidavits, warrants, omissions or statements, photographs, lineups, databases, audit history, corrections and similar-name records are preserved.
Arrest, transport, booking, release, charging, hearings, orders, pleas, trial, dismissal, appeal and detention are separated.
False arrest, later process, force, search, conviction, individual liability, Monell, immunity, favorable termination, Heck, accrual and damages are screened.
We separate the first contact, seizure, arrest, warrant, booking, prosecutor action, court process, release and any continued detention.
Dispatch, reports, recordings, witness reliability, contrary facts, identification, databases, affidavits and communications are aligned.
Wallace, Thompson, Chiaverini, Heck, Section 1983, probable cause, immunity, Monell, state claims, accrual and damages are screened.
We explain whether the facts support an arrest or detention claim, a separate force/search/conviction path, another civil issue, or no viable claim.
The cases. The work.
The difference it made.
$750K
Appeal win
The appellate ruling allowed Ehsan Ouza’s claims to move forward, including a claim that the city failed to train or supervise its officers.
Settlement
Officers searched and arrested our client because he was standing near a suspect. After the court denied qualified immunity, the case resolved through a civil rights settlement.
Appeal win
The Sixth Circuit preserved three federal claims involving a mental-health seizure and use of force. The case still required further proceedings.
In their own words. Read what clients and families say about working with our team.
We have not gone to trial yet, but for the past 2 years I wouldn't choose anyone else to stand behind me and my child. If you want injury lawyers and team members who actually care, CHOOSE Christopher Trainor.
I recently had the pleasure of working with Chris Trainor, Amy DeRouin and their dedicated team regarding two personal claims. I cannot recommend them highly enough! From our very first consultation, it was clear that I was in capable and caring hands. I would trust them with any personal legal matter.
Focus On Your Recovery. Get Help With Your Claim.
Treatment, bills, and insurance questions can arrive at once. We can review your situation and explain how legal help may fit into your recovery.
Consider why the stop or arrest happened, whether there was a warrant or mistaken identity, and what has happened in court. Reports, recordings, and witness details can help us assess the next steps. No sign-up and no dollar estimate. Your answers are only included if you submit the free case review below. The result is general information, not legal advice.
Question 1 of 5
Tell us where the arrest happened, which agency was involved, and the reason officers gave. Share any charges, warrant, booking or release records, witness details, and recordings you have. Let us know what is happening in court and whether a criminal-defense lawyer represents you.
Different stages use different rules. These authorities help define the civil path but cannot replace the complete criminal and evidentiary record.
A bad outcome is not enough. These patterns call for fast evidence work and exact legal staging before a civil conclusion.
Names, photographs, physical description, fingerprints, database entries, audit logs, warnings and correction history may identify where the error began and continued.
The source, bias, contradictions, corroboration, officer knowledge and exculpatory information may matter to probable cause.
Material false statements or omissions, source reliability, attachment and scope, execution, officer reliance and judicial process require the complete affidavit and record.
After Chiaverini, probable cause for one charge does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment theory involving another charge without probable cause.
Legal process, new information, identity correction, release authority, prosecutor or court action and causation can affect a later detention theory.
An arrest may be supported while the force or search is still disputed—or vice versa. Each theory needs its own facts.
A wrongful-arrest review can involve a pre-process false-arrest theory, warrant and affidavit issues, later detention or Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution questions, individual and entity liability, immunity, criminal-case overlap, accrual, causation and damages. Dismissal alone is not the test.
Wallace v. Kato distinguishes false arrest before legal process from later process and supplies accrual caution.
Thompson v. Clark holds that favorable termination for the Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution path requires the prosecution to end without a conviction.
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon rejects a categorical rule that probable cause for one charge defeats a theory involving a separate baseless charge.
Heck v. Humphrey matters only where civil success would necessarily imply an existing conviction is invalid.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 supplies a civil vehicle for proven federal-right violations; it does not create the underlying right.
Monell requires municipal action and causation rather than vicarious liability for an employee.
Reports are repeated, private video disappears, databases update, witnesses become harder to locate, and the criminal file moves before the civil theory is identified.
Meet by phone, video, or at any of our Michigan offices.
Every case at Christopher Trainor & Associates is a team effort. Our attorneys collaborate on strategy, discovery, and litigation so you get the full strength of the firm behind you—not just a single lawyer. We have built our practice on this collaborative model since 1989.
Meet Our Attorneys