Lawsuit against county commissioner, city and police dismissed
Trending
ESCANABA -- A civil rights lawsuit against a sitting Delta County commissioner -- and Michigan State Senate hopeful -- as well as the City of Escanaba and two former law enforcement members filed by a Delta County man has been dismissed in federal court.
Reid Hyken filed suit against Delta County Commissioner Kelli van Ginhoven, the city, Former Escanaba Department of Public Safety (EDPS) Director Robert LaMarche and Former EDPS Detective Sam Pouliot in March 2025 over a series of incidents surrounding the 2022 Delta County Commissioner race.
In 2022, van Ginhoven was a candidate for the District 4 seat on the Delta County Board of Commissioners. At that time, the seat was held by Commissioner Dave Moyle, who Hyken openly supported.
While not mentioned in the court's most recent opinion, it should be noted that van Ginhoven was first elected to the Delta County Board of Commissioners (District 4) in a recall election on May 7, 2024, when Moyle was recalled from the board. Van Ginhoven was subsequently re-elected to a full four-year term in the general election on Nov. 5, 2024.
Hyken’s lawsuit landed itself in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. According to the court, a key issue in the case was whether Hyken had shown that he had a clearly established right to repeatedly drive by van Ginhoven's cupcake shop/residence, take photographs from the alleyway and, on one occasion, shout obscenities at her. The second key issue was whether probable cause existed to support a stalking charge against Hyken under Michigan law.
Hyken’s lawsuit did not specify what monetary relief was sought, though previous reporting indicates Hyken sought damages, attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-judgement interest, as well as injunctive relief.
In a 46-page decision filed on Sept. 23, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat dismissed Hyken's claims against the defendants, citing a lack of genuine issues of material fact.
"We live in a time of strong political division. Candidates and political figures are often under a scrutinizing microscope in both their public and private lives," Vermaat said. "Even local politics in the small Upper Peninsula community of Escanaba, MI, are no stranger to this reality."
Hyken filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court on March 17, 2025, asserting that the defendants violated his First Amendment right against retaliation. Hyken also asserted van Ginhoven, LaMarche and Pouliot violated his Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution during a political dispute in April 2022.
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, to make out a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim under federal statute, a plaintiff (Hyken) must show that legal process was instituted without probable cause.
Additionally, Hyken sued van Ginhoven individually for abuse of process under Michigan common law.
Hyken also asserted state-law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against van Ginhoven, LaMarche and Pouliot, specifically asserting that he suspected van Ginhoven was not residing at the address she claimed when running for a seat on the Delta County Board of Commissioners.
If true, the address discrepancy would make an individual ineligible for the elected position on the Board of Commissioners. State election law requires a candidate reside in their district for a minimum of 30 days prior to filing documents to run for public office.
Van Ginhoven’s address was reportedly changed on her driver’s license on May 25, 2022, to the address of her cupcake shop, For the Love of Cupcakes -- which has since been sold -- and she filed her documents to run for the District 4 seat on June 27, 2022 -- 34 days later.
Hyken, who owned a business near For the Love of Cupcakes, claimed living not far from van Ginhoven's business allowed him to observe that she was not present at the cupcake shop in the evenings, and it did not appear to truly be her primary residence.
On July 7, 2022, Hyken reported van Ginhoven to the Michigan State Police for alleged election fraud.
MSP investigated the election fraud complaint by speaking with van Ginhoven and observing the inside of her residence, and they determined Hyken’s complaint was unfounded on July 29, 2022.
On Aug. 22, 2022, van Ginhoven’s husband called EDPS to report Hyken’s van was seen in the alley behind the cupcake shop. Another community member also witnessed Hyken "slow roll" through the alley twice.
Officers reportedly met with Hyken, who “indicated his actions were politically motivated as his good friend was running against Kelli for county commissioner.”
Hyken claimed he was investigating van Ginhoven's residency status for the upcoming election, and he told Pouliot that as he understood, the state police were investigating where she resided and he "wanted more evidence, in case the state police did not conduct a full investigation."
Pouliot's report would later note Hyken admitted to taking pictures of van Ginhoven's apartment and yelling obscenities at van Ginhoven on one occasion.
In the days after Aug. 22, 2022, LaMarche corresponded with van Ginhoven via email to discuss her legal options regarding Hyken.
Over the course of the emails, van Ginhoven told LaMarche she would like to submit the documents to the county prosecutor to issue a warrant for stalking, to which LaMarche responded with, “Sounds like a plan.”
Hyken alleged LaMarche’s response indicated a “plan” had been concocted between LaMarche and van Ginhoven that would result in Hyken's wrongful arrest.
A warrant was requested by Pouliot on Aug. 25, 2022.
Hyken was charged with stalking and arrested on March 28, 2023, though he was released the same day on a pretrial bond. He was ordered not to leave the state, be in the presence of anyone using alcohol or enter bars or taverns, purchase a gun or dangerous weapon or have “any access to social media whatsoever.”
All of the restrictions remained in place until Oct. 11, 2023, when Menominee County Prosecuting Attorney Jeffree T. Rogg issued an order to dismiss the stalking charge against Hyken. The reason listed on the order stated, "case to be recharged as felony," though no new charge was ever issued.
Hyken claimed that the initial prosecution was done maliciously and in retaliation for his investigation into van Ginhoven's residency and his opposition to her candidacy, additionally arguing van Ginhoven was able to "garner influence" with LaMarche.
Van Ginhoven argued she was entitled to summary judgment because she was not involved in a coordinated effort to deprive Hyken of any rights, and she did not have the authority to authorize charges -- which would be in the hands of the prosecutor.
In response, Hyken maintained that he engaged in constitutionally protected activity within the safe harbor provision of the Michigan stalking statute, such as information gathering, occupying a public street and photographing the exterior of van Ginhoven's supposed residence while it was not occupied.
In the most recent opinion from the federal court, Vermaat found probable cause existed to support a stalking charge under Michigan law, noting Hyken did not have a clearly established right to engage in such conduct.
"Hyken presents his case as though he had a self-evident right to photograph Kelli Van Ginhoven in her home and yell obscenities at her window," Vermaat said.
Vermaat later continued, "Hyken repeatedly photographed Van Ginhoven's home after an MSP investigation determined that Hyken's election fraud allegations against Van Ginhoven were unfounded."
Also addressed in Vermaat's opinion were Hyken's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment claims against LaMarche and Pouliot, who argued they were entitled to qualified immunity.
Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant officer violated a right so clearly established "that every 'reasonable official would have understood that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right,'" according to case law.
“To overcome LaMarche's and Pouliot's qualified immunity defense, Hyken has the burden of showing that his right to engage in this conduct under these circumstances was clearly established. He has not met this burden," Vermaat ruled.
Van Ginhoven filed counterclaims against Hyken on Oct. 15, 2025, which allege defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) inflicted by Hyken pertaining to Facebook posts.
The U.S. District Court previously granted in part and denied in part Hyken's motion to dismiss van Ginhoven's counterclaims. On Sept. 23, Vermaat stated the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over van Ginhoven's state-law claims.
After the case against her was dismissed, van Ginhoven gave a statement to the Daily Press:
"This lawsuit brought by Mr. Hyken against myself and the City of Escanaba was completely without merit or evidence. The judge saw clearly through Mr. Hyken's egregious attempts at a money grab.
"This ridiculous lawsuit cost myself, the taxpayers of Escanaba and the US judicial system time and money.
"The amount of online abuse, blatant lies and hateful rhetoric I have had to endure over the last 1.5 years at times was more than I could bear, but nevertheless, I persisted.
"While I am pleased with the judgement of dismissal in this lawsuit, my justice has truly never been served due to the failed work of Special Prosecutor Rogg. I hope one day my justice will be served.
"Many thanks to the City of Escanaba for refusing to settle this case, my attorney, Derek Swajanen for his excellent legal work over the last 1.5 years, and most of all to my family, friends and members of the community who have helped me through this difficult time."
Neither Hyken, Rogg nor Pouliot responded to the Daily Press' request for comment. LaMarche could not be reached for comment.
------
Sophie Vogelmann can be reached at 906-786-2021, ext. 148, or svogelmann@dailypress.net.