Deputy

His bedroom, checked his security cameras to see a sheriff's deputy on his doorstep, and went to the front door to greet Deputy Thomas. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 127-28; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 0:52-0:58.) Call cracked open his door enough for his thin frame to fit in the threshold. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 129; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 0:58-1:01.) As Call opened the front door, J.C. emerged from his bedroom, just behind Call where he stood in the doorway. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 0:581:01.) Deputy Thomas testified that, while its possible he saw someone appearing behind Call, he could not determine the individual was J.C. (Doc. No. 19 at PageID 301.) Deputy Thomas identified himself to Call and asked if J.C. was home. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 130.) When Call told Deputy Thomas that J.C. was there, Deputy Thomas said that he needed to speak with the boy and attempted to enter Call's home. (Id.) It is disputed whether Deputy Thomas told Call why he needed to speak with J.C. or whether Deputy Thomas asked to be let in. (Compare Doc. Nos. 17 at PageID 130; 19 at PageID 279, 300.) For his part, Call assumed that J.C. had done something wrong and Deputy Thomas was there to arrest him. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 132-33.) Nevertheless, it is clear that Deputy Thomas attempted to enter Call's home after introducing himself. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:08-1:15.) As Deputy Thomas stepped forward, Call blocked

Felt he was treated in the doorway. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 136-37.) Call started loudly demanding the Deputies' supervisor and, with the limited porch space available to him, pointed his index finger at Deputy Thomas. (Doc. No. 21 at PageID 347; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 2:342:38.) Deputy Thomas was now focused on trying to explain to Call that he was called to ensure J.C.'s well-being. (Doc. No. 19 at PageID 284.) However, Call admittedly tuned out everything Deputy Thomas had to say, as he continued to swear at the Deputies and demand a supervisor. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 170.) Deputy Fenwick instructed Call to join him at the bottom of the porch steps so they could talk in the yard while Deputy Thomas spoke with J.C. (Doc. No. 21 at PageID 347.) As Call turned toward the porch steps to comply, he complained about Deputy Thomas to Deputy Fenwick. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 139.) Before Call could take a full step, Deputy Thomas placed Call under arrest, securing him in handcuffs and leading him to the backseat of Deputy Thomas' police cruiser. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 141; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 2:40-3:25.) The Deputies' left Call's home after J.C. agreed to go to the hospital for emergency mental health services. (Doc. No. 28-2 at PageID 487.) At that time, the Deputies transferred Call to Deputy Fenwick's police cruiser. (Id.) Deputy Fenwick transported Call to Tri County Jail and booked him on a charge for

Business. However, Call contends that Deputy Thomas deliberately misrepresented his behavior on the morning of August 17, 2022, as deserving of prosecution. (Doc. No. 34 at PageID 681.) This argument is without merit. The Court has reviewed the video footage of the incident (Defs. Ex. A, Video), and, Deputy Thomas' Court Statement (Doc. No. 28-3) and Narrative Supplement (Doc. No. 28-2) accurately reflect the events leading to Call's arrest as depicted in the video. The only perceivable inconsistency in Deputy Thomas' reports is his assertion that Call kept coming toward him just before Deputy Thomas placed Call in handcuffs. (Doc. No. 28-3 at PageID 488-89.) The Court will not find a constitutional violation due to this triviality. In-fact, just prior to his arrest, Call's movements were directed toward Deputy Thomas. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 2:34-2:38.) It was only in the split second that Deputy Fenwick spoke to Call that Call turned away from Deputy Thomas. (Id. at 2:40.) If anything, Deputy Thomas' account of the August 17 arrest merely omitted a minor inconsequential detail. Hence, the Court finds that Deputy Thomas did not participate in the decision to prosecute Call, as necessary to establish a constitutional violation for malicious prosecution. What is more, Deputy Thomas possessed probable cause to arrest Call for obstruction of official business on August 17, 2022. Ohio law states that: No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act

Police against interrupting the investigation.” Patrizi v. Huff, 690 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing State v. Wellman, 879 N.E.2d 215, 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)). When he came onto the porch, Call was loudly swearing at Deputy Thomas such that Deputy Thomas was focused on Call rather than J.C. Deputy Thomas attempted to explain his presence to Call, but Call tuned out Deputy Thomas to continue expressing his frustration at the officer. When engaged with Deputy Thomas, whether out of anger or fear for his son, Call behaved in a way that was perceivably intended to prevent Deputy Thomas from conducting a wellness check for J.C.'s benefit. Thus, Call's claim for malicious prosecution also fails due to the existence of probable cause. In sum, Deputy Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity on Call's malicious prosecution claim because Call has not proven that Deputy Thomas subjected him to a constitutional violation. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion with respect to Call's malicious prosecution claim. IV. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) in all respects. Call's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED

Real time. (Id. at PageID 465, 467-68.) J.C. has since reached the age of majority. The Court continues to refer to J.C. by his initials in this Order in light of his minority status when the events at issue occurred. On the night in question, there were just two Champaign County Sheriff's Deputies on duty: Deputy Thomas and Deputy Brandon Fenwick (“Deputy Fenwick”) (collectively, “Deputies”). (Doc. No. 19 at PageID 278.) There was no department supervisor on duty. (Id.) Both Deputies responded to Dispatch's call regarding J.C., initially following non-emergency procedures. (Doc. No. 21 at PageID 344.) As Dispatch informed the Deputies that J.C. was escalating his threats of self-harm, the Deputies adapted to an emergency response, using police lights and sirens. (Id.) Deputy Thomas was the first of the two Deputies to reach Call's home, at around 12:37 AM. (Id. at PageID 346; see also Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 0:00.) When Deputy Thomas arrived, he stepped onto Call's small wooden porch, which connected to the front door of the home. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, 0:00-0:04.) Deputy Thomas knocked on the front door twice, announcing himself as law enforcement each time. (Id. at 0:10-0:42.) Call, who was in bed when Deputy Thomas arrived, was not immediately woken by Deputy Thomas' knocks or announcements. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 129.) Instead, Call was alerted to the presence of someone at his door by his dogs. (Id.) About one minute after Deputy Thomas had gotten to Call's house, Call came from

His access. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 131.) Deputy Thomas proceeded to shove Call, causing Call to stumble backward half a step. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:17-1:20.) Attempting to diffuse the confrontation, J.C. identified himself and agreed to come outside to speak with Deputy Thomas on the porch. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 132.) J.C. began toward the door, but Call put his arm up against the door frame to block J.C.'s exit. (Id. at PageID 167.) Call advised J.C. that he did not have to speak to Deputy Thomas by himself. (Id.) Deputy Thomas then gave Call another light shove and Call took his hand off the door frame to let J.C. out onto the porch. (Doc. No. 19 at PageID 280; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:361:40.) Deputy Thomas patted down J.C. for weapons and checked to make sure J.C. was not injured. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:48-2:00.) Call, wearing just his underwear at the time, ran back to his bedroom to get dressed so he could join J.C. and Deputy Thomas outside. (Doc. No. 17 at PageID 169; Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:50-1:55.) Call did not return to the porch for about another thirty-to-forty seconds. (Defs. Ex. A, Video, at 1:50-2:25.) In the meantime, Deputy Thomas spoke with J.C. (Id. at 2:00-2:20.) Deputy Fenwick had also arrived and was standing at the bottom of Call's porch steps. (Id. at 2:00-2:25.) When Call did return, he was aggravated with Deputy Thomas specifically about how he