CARDELLE KENDRICKS V JOHN REHFIELD LIVONIA PO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CARDELLE KENDRICKS,
FOR PUBLICATION
April 20, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
LIVONIA POLICE OFFICER JOHN REHFIELD,
LIVONIA POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER
KOTT, and LIVONIA POLICE SERGEANT MCKEE,
No. 256693
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 03-340901-NO
Defendants-Appellants,
and
DETROIT POLICE OFFICER KEVIN COUNTS,
DETROIT POLICE OFFICER KEVIN REED,
DETROIT POLICE SERGEANT JOSEPH O'LEARY,
DETROIT POLICE INVESTIGATOR DIETRICH
LEVER, and DETROIT POLICE OFFICER HOYT,
Official Reported Version
Defendants.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Jansen and Markey, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The sole issue presented in this case is whether defendants'
conduct amounted to gross negligence. This Court has held that police officers acting with
probable cause1 are not grossly negligent for arresting the wrong person as a result of mistaken
identity. Bell v Fox, 206 Mich App 522, 525; 522 NW2d 869 (1994). Here, defendants mistook
plaintiff for his brother. It is uncontested that plaintiff 's brother had committed a crime. It is
further undisputed that the brothers are twins. Moreover, plaintiff 's first name, "Cardelle," is
1
"Probable cause" is the quantum of evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence
and caution to reasonably entertain a belief of the accused person's guilt. People v Yost, 468
Mich 122, 126; 659 NW2d 604 (2003).
-1-
remarkably similar to his twin brother's first name, "Carnelle." Finally, evidence indicated that
Carnelle may have used his brother's name as an alias on past occasions. Under the
circumstances of this case, defendants' mistake with respect to plaintiff 's identity was a
reasonable misunderstanding. Defendants were not grossly negligent in arresting plaintiff. Id.
Nor were defendants grossly negligent in failing to investigate plaintiff 's claims of
mistaken identity. Defendants' failure to conduct a more thorough investigation of plaintiff 's
true identity was not "conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for
whether an injury results." See former MCL 691.1407(2)(c). While an "investigation's lack of
thoroughness might support an inference of negligence," Ahlers v Schebil, 188 F3d 365, 373 (CA
6, 1999), mere evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a question of fact concerning
gross negligence, Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122-123; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). The
burden was on plaintiff to plead facts in avoidance of governmental immunity. Michonski v
Detroit, 162 Mich App 485, 490; 413 NW2d 438 (1987). Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to identify
how defendants' conduct rose to the level of recklessness required for gross negligence. I would
reverse the trial court's denial of defendants' motion for summary disposition.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
