The plaintiffs do point to a case decided by the Sixth Circuit,
Davis v. Brady, in which that court found that the plaintiff had a valid
section 1983 claim against police officers who abandoned him in an intoxicated condition on a highway, where he was subsequently hit by a car and severely injured.
143 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir.1998). However, the facts in
Davis distinguish it from the instant case. The plaintiff in
Davis testified that he asked the officers not to be released on the road but the officers threw him out of the car in order to “teach [him] a lesson.”
Id. at 1023. As stated above, once a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs in this case have not presented any evidence to contradict Rubio's and Villarreal's affidavits that Kovacic demanded to be let out of the squad car in the Speedy Stop parking lot and thus was released from their custody at his request. There is also no evidence in the record that shows that the officers had any reason to think that Kovacic likely would not call his wife to pick him up as he indicated, or that the officers were aware that Kovacic was lacking the resources to secure another way home.