A Michigan resident is seeking damages after alleging that county officials conducted an improper investigation, unlawfully searched his properties, arrested him without probable cause, and caused significant harm to his business and reputation. The complaint was filed by Joseph Ross Breidenstein in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 25, 2026, naming Charlevoix County, Sheriff Chuck Vondra, Officer William Church, Deputy Clyde Payton, Sergeant Justin Holzschu, and ten unidentified officers as defendants.
According to the filing, Breidenstein claims that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when county law enforcement officers allegedly failed to properly investigate a vehicle theft he reported prior to their obtaining a search warrant. The complaint states that Officer William Church refused to document Breidenstein’s stolen vehicle report despite being informed of the circumstances. This refusal allegedly prevented preservation of exculpatory evidence relevant to subsequent criminal allegations against Breidenstein.
The lawsuit outlines that on or about July 9, 2025, officers obtained a search warrant based on information from an unverified informant with no established reliability. Breidenstein alleges that the affidavit supporting the warrant included false statements and omitted material facts necessary for a probable cause determination. The document asserts: “Defendants conducted no meaningful investigation, including no surveillance, no controlled buys, and no independent corroboration.”
Breidenstein further claims that while the warrant authorized entry only at one address—3154 Townhouse Trail—officers also entered his separate residence without judicial authorization or consent. He argues this constituted an unconstitutional intrusion: “Warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unconstitutional.” No drugs or evidence were found during these searches according to the complaint.
Following these events, Breidenstein was publicly arrested without what he describes as reasonably trustworthy information justifying probable cause. He alleges that his phones and business property were seized by law enforcement and retained beyond any lawful purpose. The devices reportedly contained essential business data critical to his work as a self-employed contractor.
The legal filing notes that the search warrant was later quashed by a Michigan court after which prosecutors withdrew their appeal. “Plaintiff was never convicted,” it states. The complaint emphasizes this favorable termination as support for Breidenstein’s claims of malicious prosecution and lack of probable cause.
In addition to federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—including unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, failure to investigate exculpatory evidence, unlawful retention of property, unlawful entry into property not covered by a warrant, municipal liability for inadequate training or supervision under Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), and civil conspiracy—the suit brings multiple state law causes of action.
These include false arrest/false imprisonment under Michigan law; defamation through alleged false statements about criminal drug activity communicated to third parties; intentional infliction of emotional distress due to what Breidenstein describes as extreme conduct such as fabricating allegations or entering his home without authorization; negligent infliction of emotional distress as an alternative claim; conversion for wrongful retention of personal property; negligence in failing to properly investigate; and gross negligence demonstrating substantial disregard for potential injury.
The plaintiff details claimed damages ranging from lost income ($30,000–$60,000), lost opportunities ($10,000–$20,000), receivables ($5,000–$10,000), property loss ($5,000–$15,000), medical damages ($5,000–$25,000), emotional distress ($50,000–$150,000), reputational harm ($25,000–$100,000), and vehicle-related losses ($3,000–$10,000). Total damages are stated as exceeding $130,000 up to $390,000.
Breidenstein seeks compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional distress; punitive damages pursuant to Smith v. Wade (1983); declaratory relief; injunctive relief; costs and attorney’s fees under federal statute; interest; and any other relief deemed just by the court. He demands trial by jury.
The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-983 before Honorable Robert J. Jonker in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Joseph Ross Breidenstein is representing himself in this matter.
Source: 126cv983_Joseph_Ross_v_Charlevoix_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
