A federal appeals court ruled that Trumbull County sheriff's deputies had probable cause to arrest Commissioner Niki Frenchko during a 2022 meeting, overturning a lower court decision that had declared the action unconstitutional.
 
In a decision issued last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that Frenchko's behavior during the July 7, 2022, meeting gave Sgts. Harold Wix and Robert Ross reasonable grounds to charge her with disrupting a lawful meeting.
 
The three-judge panel found that Frenchko repeatedly interrupted a clerk reading a letter into the record and refused to yield the floor when instructed by the commission chairman.
 
The court concluded that because the officers observed conduct that hindered the progress of the meeting, the arrest was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This ruling found that the deputies and county officials had immunity regarding the claim of unlawful seizure.
 
The issue of qualified immunity, in this case for the deputies and elected officials, has been central to the former commissioners' and sheriff's defense. They have claimed they are covered under this legal concept, which shields public officials from being sued in their personal capacity for their official actions in some cases. 
 
The concept gained mainstream notoriety in the aftermath of several police brutality cases, including the death of George Floyd in 2020, with typically Democratic politicians arguing for its abolition. 
 
In this decision, those politics are turned on their head, with the judges who are Democratic appointees ruling in favor of its use and the Republican appointee dissenting, in part. 
 
Frenchko, reacting to the ruling, said the ruling amounts to protecting elected officials from the consequences of wrongdoing. 
 
""The panel didn't just make a legal mistake — it misstated the record. My conspiracy claim was argued, and the dissent said so plainly. When courts get the facts wrong, it protects the very officials who orchestrate the wrongdoing. I'm a veteran, and I take the Constitution seriously. I'm going to keep fighting this because every American deserves a justice system that deals in truth, not excuses for government abuse," Frenchko told 21 News. 
 
The court allowed Frenchko to proceed with state law claims alleging that former Sheriff Paul Monroe, former Commissioners Frank Fuda, and Mauro Cantalamessa and the two deputies engaged in a civil conspiracy and false arrest.
 
The judges noted that a jury could reasonably infer the officials acted in bad faith or hatched a plan to arrest the commissioner.
 
The opinion cited evidence, including a meeting between Monroe and Fuda before the arrest, as well as text messages sent by Cantalamessa celebrating the incident, as reasons a jury could find the defendants acted with a dishonest purpose.
 
Monroe texted a television reporter moments before the arrest, although he claims to not recall what the nature of the text was. That reporter, who had not been present, was able to get in position to report on the arrest shortly after receiving the text. 
 
Regarding federal First Amendment retaliation claims, the court dismissed the case against Monroe, Fuda, and Cantalamessa. The judges ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove these officials were personally involved in the specific decision to execute the arrest at that moment.
 
The court sent the First Amendment retaliation claim against Wix and Ross back to the district court.
 
While the deputies had probable cause for the arrest, the lower court must now determine if Frenchko can prove she was singled out for her protected speech when others similarly situated would not have been arrested.

Attorney Andrew Yosowitz, representing Sergeants Wix and Ross in the Niki Frenchko case, issued the following statement late Tuesday:

Ms. Frenchko’s primary constitutional claim is that she was arrested without probable cause. That claim is now dismissed. All three Sixth Circuit judges agreed that Sergeants Wix and Ross did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they had probable cause to arrest Ms. Frenchko for her repeated disruptions. We will continue to defend Sergeants Wix and Ross on the narrow First Amendment and state law claims that remain.

Judge John Nalbandian issued a partial dissent, arguing that the claims against Monroe, Fuda, and Cantalamessa should not have been dismissed because conspiracy liability can apply to constitutional violations.

 
Nalbandian points out an apparent discrepancy in the majority's reasoning, writing: "the majority improperly grants qualified immunity to Fuda,
Cantalamessa,and Monroe (the Non-Officer Defendants) on Frenchko's First Amendment retaliation claim. But at the same time, it properly recognizes that live questions remain as to whether Wix and Ross (the Officer Defendants) should receive qualified immunity on that claim. That differential result flows from the majority's conclusion that the conspiracy issue is not properly before us. I disagree. So I would remand the retaliation claim for all the individual defendants, not just the Officers."  
 
The case stems from a meeting where Frenchko was arrested while protesting the reading of a letter from Sheriff Monroe that criticized her previous comments about medical care at the county jail.
 
The incident drew media attention after a video showed deputies removing Frenchko from her seat and leading her out of the meeting room in handcuffs.