Plaintiffs Accuse City Officials Over Alleged Malicious Prosecution During George Floyd Protests

In a recent legal development, two former Columbus police officers have been denied relief in their appeals against the City of Columbus and its Deputy Director of Public Safety. On December 11, 2025, the Ohio Tenth Appellate District upheld a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The case was filed by Holly Kanode and Phillip Walls, who alleged malicious prosecution and other claims stemming from their actions during the George Floyd protests in May 2020.

The complaints were initially filed by Phillip Walls on April 5, 2023, and by Holly Kanode on July 11, 2023, both in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against the City of Columbus and Richard Wozniak. The plaintiffs accused Wozniak of malicious prosecution after they faced criminal charges related to their conduct as police officers during the protests. Walls was charged with assault and other offenses for deploying mace at protestors, while Kanode faced charges for allegedly making false statements leading to an arrest. Both sets of charges were eventually dismissed or resulted in acquittals.

Kanode and Walls argued that there was no probable cause for their prosecutions and claimed that Wozniak acted with malice. They sought relief from the court through summary judgment motions but were unsuccessful. The trial court found that both the city and Wozniak were immune under Ohio law (R.C. 2744) and determined that there was probable cause for initiating criminal proceedings against them.

The appellate court’s decision reaffirmed this view, emphasizing that probable cause existed based on evidence available at the time charges were filed. For instance, Wozniak conducted extensive investigations into both incidents involving multiple interviews and reviews of body-worn camera footage before proceeding with charges. Despite expert testimony from James Scanlon suggesting otherwise, the court found no evidence that Wozniak acted with malice or recklessness.

Furthermore, even though Nicodemus—an attorney involved in reviewing these cases—testified he would not have pursued charges due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, he acknowledged there was probable cause for assault charges against Walls.

Ultimately, Kanode and Walls failed to convince either court that their prosecutions lacked merit or were driven by malicious intent. Their appeals focused heavily on disputing probable cause findings but did not address other elements like malice adequately enough to overturn previous rulings.

Representing Kanode and Walls were attorneys Lewis A. Zipkin and Kevin M. Gross from Zipkin Whiting Co., L.P.A., while Molly R. Gwin and Amy E. Flowers from Ice Miller LLP defended Columbus officials alongside Deputy Director Richard Wozniak throughout these proceedings under Judge Jamison’s oversight (Case Nos: 25AP-175 & 25AP-176).