## Facts

- James Baker entered a Dunkin’ Donuts in Southfield, Michigan while openly carrying a rifle and a handgun.
- The shop’s manager called 911 and requested police assistance in having Baker removed from the premises.
- Several Southfield police officers responded to the call and approached Baker inside the shop.
- An officer asked Baker why he had the firearms; Baker replied that he was openly carrying them.
- Officers temporarily disarmed Baker while they questioned him.
- Baker refused to provide identification.
- An officer pulled Baker’s wallet from his jacket to obtain his identification.
- The officers restricted Baker’s movement inside the shop during the encounter.
- After confirming that the manager wanted Baker to leave, the officers escorted him to his car, placed his weapons in the trunk, and watched him depart.
- The encounter lasted about 30 minutes.
- Baker sued the officers and related municipal defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments, and also asserted Michigan tort claims (including assault, battery, and false imprisonment).
- Defendants raised qualified immunity and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the officers’ detention of Baker and temporary disarmament during the response to the 911 call violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether obtaining Baker’s identification by taking his wallet during the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the officers’ temporary disarmament and related conduct violated a clearly established Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms in a private business.
4. Whether supervisory and municipal defendants could be liable under § 1983 in the absence of an actionable underlying constitutional violation.
5. Whether the federal court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Michigan tort claims after dismissal of the federal claims.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion.
- The court dismissed Baker’s federal constitutional claims under § 1983 with prejudice, concluding that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged Second and Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established on these facts.
- The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the City of Southfield and supervisory defendants because Baker did not plead a viable underlying constitutional violation that would support municipal or supervisory liability.
- After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is evaluated under the same plausibility standard used for Rule 12(b)(6): the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and determines whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief.
- Under Terry v. Ohio, officers may conduct a brief investigatory detention when they have reasonable suspicion, and they may take reasonable safety measures during the stop when circumstances suggest potential danger.
- Temporary disarmament during an investigatory stop can be a reasonable safety measure when officers respond to a report involving firearms and are assessing the situation.
- Qualified immunity shields officers from damages unless the plaintiff shows (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct; the “clearly established” inquiry focuses on whether existing precedent put the unlawfulness of the conduct beyond reasonable debate.
- For Second Amendment claims in this setting, the court asked whether there was clearly established law recognizing a right to remain armed in a private business after the property manager requested police assistance; the court concluded there was not.
- Municipal liability under Monell requires an underlying constitutional violation and a plausible link to a municipal policy or custom; absent a viable federal violation, municipal and related supervisory-liability claims fail.
- When all federal claims are dismissed, a district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

## Conclusion

Baker v. Smiscik held that officers responding to a donut shop manager’s 911 request for help with an openly armed patron were entitled to qualified immunity for briefly detaining Baker, temporarily disarming him, and obtaining his identification during the investigation; the court dismissed all § 1983 Second and Fourth Amendment claims with prejudice, dismissed related municipal and supervisory claims, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Michigan tort claims, dismissing them without prejudice.


Baker v. Smiscik, 49 F. Supp. 3d 489 (2014)