AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant
Monthly Law Journal Article: Contempt of Cop: Verbal Challenges, Disrespect, Arrests, and the First Amendment, 2011 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article: Probable Cause For Arrest Will Ordinarily Defeat First Amendment Retaliation Claim, 2019 (7) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
|
The plaintiff's claim in a warrantless false arrest lawsuit arose from a sheriff’s deputy’s visit to her house to check on the welfare of her daughter, who had expressed suicidal thoughts. The appeals court noted that the deputy could justify the arrest by showing probable cause for any crime, and that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff for interference with public duties in light of the prevailing law at the time of the arrest. In this case, probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff after she instructed her child to physically disobey the officer and the child complied. A reasonable officer could believe that the woman's conduct did not fall within the speech-only exception where she did not deny that she told the child to get in her car, contravening the officer’s order that the child get in his patrol car. The deputy had legal authority to place the child in protective custody. A federal appeals court therefore upheld a grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim of false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Voss v. Goode, #19-20167, 954 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 2020). A reporter for a local news organization heard on a police scanner of multiple traffic stops in a specific area. As he did not have a driver’s license, he rode a motorized bicycle to the area to take photographs. He suspected that police were running a prostitution sting operation. An officer noticed him and radioed the team. Two officers knew of the reporter’s previous anti‐police speech. They directed him to “move on.” He asked if he was breaking any laws. An officer told him that he was not, but that his continued presence would constitute obstruction of a police detail and result in arrest. He started his bicycle and called out, loudly, “goodbye officers.” Concerned that the reporter might post pictures on social media while the sting operation was ongoing and create a danger for unarmed undercover officers, the officers followed him and arrested him for driving the wrong way on a one‐way street, operating a vehicle without insurance, obstructing a police officer, felony aggravated driving on a revoked license, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid drivers’ license. News stories listed his name as an arrestee in the prostitution sting. The charges against him were dismissed. He sued the officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants on First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution under Illinois law, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening Nieves v. Bartlett, #17-1174, 139 S.Ct. 1715 (2019) decision holding, that, in most cases, probable cause to arrest defeats a claim of retaliatory arrest. There was probable cause to arrest the reporter, nullifying any retaliatory arrest claim under the First Amendment. Lund v. City of Rockford, #19-1945, 2020 U.S. App. Lexis 12526 (7th Cir.). |
An officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on illegal entry, wrongful arrest, and retaliatory arrest claims for forcibly entering a man’s home without a warrant and arresting him for animal cruelty after a neighbor falsely reported that he had shot a stray cat in his yard. In making the report, the neighbor admitted to police that she did not know whether it was a BB gun that was fired, and that she did not see the allegedly injured cat. When Animal Control arrived and spoke to the man, he explained that he had shot at a trampoline with a BB gun to scare the cat. The officer saw neither weapons nor injured cats, yet when other officers arrived at the residence, one forcibly entered the home and made a warrantless arrest. There were no exigent circumstances as there was no information that the arrestee was armed and likely to use a weapon or become violent, and an exception to the warrant requirement was needed for a warrantless entry into a home. Qualified immunity was also not warranted on the warrantless arrest claim because a reasonable jury could find that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest under the circumstances, and this right was clearly established. A mere phone call reporting criminal activity, without corroboration, does not provide probable cause for an arrest. Barton v. Martin, #18-1614, 2020 U.S. App. Lexis 3763, 2020 Fed, App. 0039P (6th Cir.).
A U.S. citizen arrested for lewdness appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit claiming that he was then further wrongfully detained for four days by local authorities under a federal immigration detainer. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court mistakenly rejected the plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims against the government, because no reasonable officer would have issued the detainer under the circumstances without conducting an inquiry. Additionally, the lawsuit alleged facts from which a reasonable inquiry would have revealed that the plaintiff was a citizen who could not have been subject to an immigration detainer. The appeals court also held that the trial court erred as to the plaintiff’s official policy claim against the city, because the complaint plausibly alleged that but for the detainer, he would have been released, and that the city confined him not for his failure to post bail but because of the detainer. The complaint also plausibly alleged that the city refused to release the plaintiff because of its official policy, that the city would have seen that plaintiff was not subject to an immigration detainer if it had checked, and that the city policy caused the plaintiff’s deprivation of his rights. Hernandez v. U.S., #18-1103, 939 F.3d 191 (2nd Cir. 2019).
A deputy sheriff had sufficient probable cause to arrest a woman for battery after a fight with her sister over the specifics of the last wishes of their cancer-stricken mother. The information he received indicated that she had battered her sister. Further, the information was credible and his investigation was sufficient. The federal appeals court also ruled that the deputy did not use excessive force in making the arrest by pulling the arrestee’s arms, cinching the handcuffs too tight, or tugging on her fingers and arms to remove her ring. The court found that the force used here “wasn’t remotely unusual or disproportionate. Officers routinely pull arrestees’ arms behind their backs, and we have repeatedly held that painful handcuffing alone doesn’t constitute excessive force.” Huebner v. Bradshaw, #18-12093, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 25020, 2019 WL 3948983
(11th Cir.).]
The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against a city and a number of its police officers for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The defendants presented plaintiff with an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 for $10,001 and reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs incurred “to the date of [the] offer,” which the plaintiff accepted. But the parties disputed the amount of the attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to be paid. The claims involved alleged excessive use of force during an arrest and the alleged improper issuance of three summonses for threatening behavior towards an officer, possession of an open liquor container, and littering, all of which were subsequently dismissed. A federal appeals court upheld the trial judge’s reduction of the attorneys’ reasonable hourly rate because of the simple nature of the case, and upheld the decision to lower the hours claimed through an across-the-board reduction reflecting the clerical work performed. The appeals court also overturned the decision to award the plaintiff $7,920 in attorneys’ fees for the work done preparing the fee application, since the express terms of the accepted Rule 68 offer of judgment limited the fees recoverable to those incurred to the date of the offer. That left a total award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of $20,838.99. Lilly v. City of New York, #17-2823, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24153, 2019 WL 3806446 (2nd Cir.).
A woman, along with her minor son and her father-in-law, sued a state trooper for various alleged Fourth Amendment claims arising out of an incident in which he arrested her for obstruction when she attempted to stop him from shooting her family’s dog. After her husband video-recorded the incident, the state trooper entered the family’s home, without consent and without a warrant, and seized several of the family’s electronic devices Overturning summary judgment for the defendant trooper, a federal appeals court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact concerning the false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution claims. The factual dispute concerning the arrest revolved around whether the woman refused to comply with the trooper’s orders to back away or was even given the opportunity to comply with them before she was arrested mere seconds later. The appeals court further ruled that the trial court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the unlawful entry and seizure-of-devices claims because a jury could find that the trooper reasonably believed that the video was at risk of being deleted or concealed. Hupp v. Cook, #18-1845, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 22208, 2019 WL 3330443 (4th Cir.).
There is no viable constitutional claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, #301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), based on assertions that a federal law-enforcement officer lied, manipulated witnesses, and falsified evidence. In the immediate case, the claims were that a federally deputized officer duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing that the plaintiffs were part of a multistate sex-trafficking conspiracy. A federal appeals court declined to extend Bivens to cover these claims and remanded with respect to the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against the defendant for the trial court to consider the applicability of section 1983 in the first instance. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions constituted a violation of a clearly established right. Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation was unlawful. Farah v. Weyker, #17-3207, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 17566 (8th Cir.).
A District of Columbia anti-obstructing statute under which the three plaintiff D.C. residents were arrested is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. The federal appeals court found that the statute conferred no sweeping power and its terms were clear enough to shield against arbitrary deployment. The law only bars blocking or hindering others’ use of the places it identifies. A person is not subject to arrest unless he refuses to move out of the way when an officer directs him to do so, and the statute does not criminalize inadvertent conduct, nor does it authorize the police to direct a person to move on if he is not currently or imminently in the way of anyone else’s shared use of the place at issue. Agnew v. Government of the District of Columbia, #17-7114, 920 F.3d 49 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
An important new U.S. Supreme Court ruling greatly limits the circumstances under which a suspect arrested with probable cause can assert a claim for damages for alleged violation of their First Amendment free speech rights by that arrest. An 8-1 majority of the Court ruled that an arrestee’s claim that two police officers retaliated against him for his protected First Amendment speech by arresting him for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest could not survive summary judgment. The incident occurred during a winter sports festival, “Arctic Man,” a raucous winter sports festival held in a remote part of Alaska. One of the officers was speaking with a group of attendees at the festival when the seemingly intoxicated plaintiff started shouting at them not to talk to the police. When the officer approached him, the plaintiff began yelling at the officer to leave. Rather than escalate the situation, the officer left. Minutes later, the plaintiff approached a second officer in an aggressive manner while he was questioning a minor, stood between him and the teenager, and yelled with slurred speech that the officer should not speak with the minor. When the plaintiff stepped toward the officer, the officer pushed him back. The first officer saw the confrontation and initiated an arrest. After he was handcuffed, the arrestee claims that the first officer said "bet you wish you would have talked to me now." The only evidence of retaliatory animus identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was the plaintiff’s affidavit alleging that statement by the first officer. But that allegation said nothing about what motivated the second officer, who had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s prior run-in with the first officer.In any event, the Court found that the retaliatory arrest claim against both officers could not succeed because they had probable cause to arrest him. The existence of probable cause to arrest defeated his First Amendment claim as a matter of law. Under the Court’s analysis, the existence of probable cause for an arrest will ordinarily bar a claim that the arrest was made in retaliation for protected First Amendment speech. The Court’s opinion did provide for a small exception to this general rule where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so, particularly with arrests made for very minor offenses. An unyielding requirement to show the absence of probable cause in such cases could pose “a risk that some police officers may exploit the arrest power as a means of suppressing speech.” The presence of probable cause will not bar a claim that the arrest was made in retaliation for protected First Amendment speech when objective evidence is presented that the plaintiff was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been. Nieves v. Bartlett, #17-1174, 2019 U.S. Lexis 3557 (May 28, 2019),
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff in lawsuit claiming that he was unlawfully arrested in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court ruled that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff where the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest based on a search of his home and computers under a search warrant were sufficient for the detective to believe that he had committed or was committing the offense of possessing child pornography. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, because there was no constitutional violation, no municipal liability attached to the county and the city. Nader v. City of Papillion, #18-1402, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 6963 (8th Cir.).
A federal appeals court found that the summary arrest, handcuffing, and police transport to the police station of a number of middle school girls was a disproportionate response to the school’s need, which was dissipation of what the school officials characterized as an “ongoing feud” and “continuous argument” between the students. The appeals court upheld the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity and grant of summary judgment for the students in an action alleging that a sheriff’s deputy arrested the students on campus without probable cause in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and state law. In this case, the deputy was invited to speak to a group of girls in school about bullying and fighting. When the girls were unresponsive and disrespectful, the deputy arrested the girls. The appeals court applied the two-part reasonableness test set forth in New Jersey v. T.L.O., #83-712, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), holding that the arrests were unreasonable because they were not justified at their inception nor reasonably related in scope to the circumstances. Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that the law authorized the arrest of a group of middle schoolers in order to teach them a lesson or to prove a point, and the evidence was insufficient to create probable cause to arrest the students for violating state statutes, and therefore the plaintiffs were also entitled to summary judgment on their state false arrest claim. Scott v. County of San Bernardino, #16-55518, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25568 (9th Cir.).
Officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?" However, no exigent circumstances prevented the officers from gathering additional information before making the arrest. Here, a minimal further investigation would have revealed that the plaintiff’s post was not a true threat. Therefore, it was “beyond debate” that had the officers engaged in further investigation, the only reasonable conclusion was that the plaintiff had not violated the law by disturbing the peace. A federal appeals court therefore reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to three officers based on qualified immunity on the arrestee’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Ross v. City of Jackson, #17-1390, 897 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2018).
A woman sued the U.S. government for false arrest and imprisonment by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers because the officers detained her after she presented them with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which she argued conclusively showed her right to remain in the United States. The lawsuit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). A federal appeals court ruled that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applied in this case where the officers enforced a removal order. The court ruled that, what the plaintiff insisted was certain from the EAD and removed all discretion was, in reality, sufficiently uncertain as to leave discretion in the hands of the officers. Campos v. U.S., #16-61476, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10378 (5th Cir.).
Police raided a loud late-night party in a vacant house after hearing that illegal activities were going on there. The house was in disarray, with a smell of marijuana and liquor on display. There was a “makeshift strip club” in the living room, and several men with a naked woman in a bedroom. Those present told inconsistent stories, with two identifying “Peaches” as the tenant and saying that she had given permission for the party. When the officers spoke by phone to Peaches, she eventually admitted that she did not have permission to use the house. The owner of the premises indicated that he had not given anyone permission to be there. The officers arrested those present for unlawful entry. Several sued for false arrest. A jury awarded a total of $680,000 in damages to multiple arrestees. After an award of attorneys’ fees, the total awarded added up to nearly $1 million. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with this award, and held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the officers made an “entirely reasonable inference” that the partygoers knew they did not have permission to be in the house. The condition of the house and the conduct of the partygoers allowed the officers to make “common-sense conclusions” about human behavior and infer that the partygoers, who scattered and hid, knew the party was not authorized. Their implausible answers gave the officers ample reason to believe that they were lying. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity even if they lacked actual probable cause because a reasonable officer could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests. District of Columbia v. Wesby, #15-1485, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453, 2018 U.S. Lexis 760.
A man was arrested and charged in connection with a bar fight that resulted in one dead victim and one badly injured one. He was acquitted and sued for false arrest and malicious prosecution. A federal appeals court found that summary judgment for the defendants on these claims was premature when disputed questions of material fact remained regarding key aspects of the criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution. The police arrested him based on little more than a witness’s statement that he wore a similar shirt to that of one of the attackers. He raised a question of material fact as to whether prosecutors and the grand jury were aware of the limited nature of the identification and the highly suggestive manner of the lineup in which he was the only suspect wearing a maroon sweatshirt. Dufort v. City of New York, #16-1715, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 21322 (2nd Cir.).
It was not objectively reasonable for police officers to believe that they had probable cause to arrest a man for obstruction when he stood in his own lighted doorway 30 to 40 feet away directing verbal criticism at the officers and telling them that his wife, who they were confronting in the driveway could not follow their instructions as she was disabled. His statements did not amount to “fighting words,” and were protected First Amendment activity. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on First and Fourth Amendment claims. A jury would have to decide whether there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s protected speech and the actions the officers took against him. Hoyland v. McMenomy, #16-2222, 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017).
A married couple sued police officers, claiming that their warrantless entry into their home and subsequent arrest of the husband over a neighbor’s complaint about his throwing objects at them earlier violated their Four Amendment rights. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of qualified immunity for the officers, finding that the officers had not shown the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. When the husband closed the interior door to his home, telling the officers to return with a warrant, the situation was such that a reasonable officer, in the absence of exigent circumstances should have realized that breaking into the house with no warrant, as well as making an arrest inside, violated clearly established law. Morse v. Cloutier, #15-2043, 869 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2016).
A woman claimed that restaurant employees and the D.C. police officers they summoned reacted “overly harshly” when she merely raised a question about her bill and temporarily left the restaurant to join some friends at another establishment nearby. They purportedly treated her temporary absence as an attempt to avoid paying the bill when the restaurant then held both her credit card and driver’s license. A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and the negligence claims against a police officer and the District of Columbia, but held that allegations of the complaint sufficiently made out civil rights claims for false arrest and excessive force, as well as common law assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment against the same officer. Hall v. District of Columbia, #16-7056, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 14888 (D.C. Cir.).
A woman who was arrested for possession of methamphetamine claimed that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest her. A federal appeals court rejected one officer’s claim that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there were disputed issues of material fact on the circumstances surrounding the arrest, specifically whether he had, as the arrestee claimed, planted drugs on her. Manning v. Cotton, #16-3076, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 12013 (8th Cir.).
A street performer and her friend were arrested on the Las Vegas strip and charged with conducting business without a license because they were dressed in “sexy cop” outfits and posed for photos with the officers in exchange for a tip. It was the plaintiff’s friend who asked the officers for the tip. After the charges were dropped, the plaintiff sued the officers, arguing that the arrest violated her First Amendment rights. Overturning summary judgment for the officers, a federal appeals court found that the record indicated the officers had no evidence before them when they decided to arrest the plaintiff that suggested that the "sexy cops" costumes had any purpose that could have fallen outside the protection of the First Amendment. To infer from the plaintiff and her friend's shared costumes and joint performance alone an agreement to engage in a transaction subject to regulation impermissibly burdens the right to engage in purely expressive activity and association. The court held that something more than that constitutionally protected activity was required to justify the plaintiff's arrest. Viewing the plaintiff's activities separately from her friend's, the court held that summary judgment for the officers was improper because her actions were entirely protected speech. Santopietro v. Howell, #14-16324, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 9028 (9th Cir.).
A woman shot and killed her husband in the shower, and four days
later reported him missing. After detectives interviewed the husband’s family,
his new girlfriend, his friends, and the wife’s sister, they gained knowledge
of the couple’s history of threats and violence. One witness noticed that the
shower curtain, liner, and hooks in the couple’s bathroom had been replaced and
store surveillance tapes showed the wife and her sister buying these new items
the night her husband went “missing.” During the execution of a search warrant,
various physical evidence of the crime was found. The wife’s sister refused to
answer questions related to the crime and her possible involvement in covering
it up. Both the wife and her sister were arrested. The sister spent 12 days in custody before her
release, and sued, claiming that the arrest was not based on probable cause,
but rather done to try to build a case against her. While her appeal of the
dismissal of that lawsuit was pending, the sister was indicted and convicted in
state court of hiding a corpse, harboring or aiding a felony, and resisting or
obstructing an officer. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal. For
purposes of qualified immunity, the court ruled, it would not have been plain
to a reasonable officer that arresting and detaining the sister under the
circumstances would have been unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. Ewell v.
Toney, #16-1009, 853 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2017).
While an arrestee’s
nolo contendere (no contest) plea conceded probable cause for his arrest,
defeating his false arrest claim, excessive force claims against the arresting
deputy were reinstated. The injuries he sustained during his arrest for failing
to have a driver’s license were not de minimis (minimal). Rather, the record
showed that he suffered medically documented severe, permanent injuries from
the deputy’s unprovoked and completely unnecessary frontal-body blows to his
chest and throwing him against the car-door jamb in the course of arresting
him. At the time, he was cooperating with officers and not resisting
whatsoever, not even raising his voice. Applying the “obvious-clarity” method
analysis, the appeals court concluded that no particularized preexisting case law
was necessary for it to be clearly established that what the deputy did
violated plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from the excessive use of
force in his arrest. Stephens
v. DeGiovanni, #15-10206, 852 F.3d
1298 (11th Cir. 2017).
A motorist claimed that a state trooper
unconstitutionally initiated a traffic stop and questioning, detainment, and
arrest of him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The state trooper
was entitled to qualified immunity from the claim that he lacked reasonable
suspicion warranting a fifty-minute extension of a traffic stop while he
summoned a drug dog that alerted to the plaintiff's pickup. The trooper did not
violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law in concluding that he had
reasonable suspicion to detain the plaintiff until the drug dog arrived based
on objective, particular facts including a discrepancy between the motorist’s
statements about his past record and what dispatch informed the officer about
the motorist’s past. De La Rosa v. White, #15-3399, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5273
(8th Cir.).
After a person was murdered and several others were shot, a man was arrested
without a warrant, on suspicion of involvement in these crimes. He admitted to
having a gun and could have, at a minimum, been charged with felony unlawful
use of a gun by a felon. But a prosecutor told the officers to delay charging
him until lab results came in establishing whether his gun had been used in the
shootings and murder. After 55 hours in custody, he sued for alleged violation
of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because he was not provided with
a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours. The next day, a
judge made a probable cause determination. The plaintiff then sought class
action certification that the city had a
policy or practice authorizing officers to detain persons arrested without a
warrant for up to 72 hours before permitting the arrestee to appear before a
judge. The city made a Rule 68 offer of judgment granting him relief as to "all
claims brought under this lawsuit,” which he accepted. Despite that, he
appealed the denial of certification of a proposed class of all “persons who
will in the future be detained.” A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal,
finding that the plaintiff was not an aggrieved person with a personal stake in
the case as required under Article III of the Constitution. Additionally, the offer of judgment accepted did not
exempt the class certification issue. Wright v.
Calumet City, #16-2219, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 2823 (7th Cir.).
A man who
was arrested while he was video recording a police station from a public
sidewalk and refused to identify himself sued three officers and the city,
claiming that the arrest violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights. He had
been handcuffed and placed in the back of
a patrol car, and released after a supervisor arrived. The individual
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s First
Amendment claim because there was no clearly established right to record the
police at the time of his activities. The appeals court ruled prospectively,
however, that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject
only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The officers were also
entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment unlawful
detention claim, but his unlawful arrest claim survived because the officers’
actions were disproportionate to any potential threat that he posed or to their
investigative needs. Turner v. Driver, #16-10312,
2017 U.S. App. Lexis 2769 (5th Cir.).
Because
West Virginia police officers have authority to make arrests for minor traffic
offenses, including the expired inspection sticker the plaintiff motorist had,
his arrest was supported by probable cause even though the officer made the
arrest for assault and obstruction rather than the expired sticker. As to his
excessive force claim, the plaintiff suffered only abrasions minor enough that
he treated them at home and did not seek medical attention. An efficient,
lawful arrest causing the arrestee to suffer only de minimis (minimal) injuries
cannot support a claim for excessive force. Pegg v. Herrnberger. #15-1999, 845
F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2017).
While working for a federal
agency in D.C., a man drove officials to Capitol Hill. At an attended
barricade, a uniformed police officer “began to chastise and yell at
him for dropping off his passengers at that location.” He made a U-turn and
left. The officer, claiming that the car struck his leg, called other officers.
A second officer arrested him for assault on a police officer and assault with
a deadly weapon, and the charges were subsequently dropped. A video of the
incident showed aggressive driving by the plaintiff. A federal appeals court
affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, upholding a determination
that no material facts were in dispute and the court’s refusal to allow Smith
to conduct discovery before its ruling. The officers had probable cause to
arrest Smith. A “reasonable officer” would have felt threatened by the
proximity of the fast-moving vehicle.” The existence of probable cause
foreclosed the plaintiff’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution,
Fourth Amendment violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Smith v. United States, #15-5238, 843 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Officers conducting
surveillance for loud-music violation decided to stop a motorist driving by. He
turned into a parking lot, went into a store, and then returned to his truck.
An officer heard the music coming from the truck as it pulled away, and he
followed. When the motorist saw the officer following, he turned down his
music. He was stopped for loud music and excessive speed. Other officers
arrived and the motorist allegedly refused to get out of his truck when
requested. He claimed that he was threatened with a Taser, and arrested for
obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. A federal appeals court upheld
dismissal of the lawsuit, finding probable cause for the arrest. There
was probable cause to stop a vehicle driver for speeding based on observations,
even though the officers did not know the driver's exact speed, Tapley v. Chambers, #15-3013, 840 F.3d 370 (7th Cir.).
A Memphis, Tenn. Police officer
was arrested at night after leaving a nightclub in the city’s Beale Street
entertainment district. He filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the city’s
alleged routine practice of “sweeping” Beale Street at 3 a.m. on weekend nights
violated his constitutional right to intrastate travel/ A jury found that the
city, in implementing the policy did not consider whether conditions in the
area posed an existing, imminent, or immediate threat to public safety. Because
of that finding, the judge ruled that the practice or policy was
unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, enjoining its enforcement. A federal
appeals court upheld this result, agreeing that strict scrutiny applied. The
primary purpose of the sweep, the court said, was to impede travel. It
resulted in the broad denial of access to a popular, two-block area of a public
roadway and sidewalk, and was more than an “incidental inconvenience.” Under
either strict or intermediate scrutiny, the city bore the burden of justifying
the sweep to its stated goal of public safety. Cole v. City of Memphis, #15-5725, 830 F.3d 530 (6th Cir.).
False Arrest/Imprisonment: No Warrant
A man who is of Kurdish and Turkish
descent claimed that two police officers arrested him because of his ethnicity
in violation of equal protection. The officers came upon him while
investigating a report of a suspicious person “casing” the neighborhood, and he
fit the reported description. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment
on the basis of qualified immunity on claims of selective enforcement and
failure to intervene, finding that the officers’ actions had no proven
discriminatory effect or purpose. Gilani v. Matthews, #16-1689, 843 F.3d 342
(8th Cir. 2016).
Several
plaintiff arrestees sued for false arrest after they were arrested for trespass
at a party in an apartment. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of
the claim, since there appeared to be a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the officers had probable cause to make an arrest for trespass. There
was no reasonable basis for their belief that the building in question was in
the Formal Trespass Affidavit Program, under which the police department was
the lawful custodian of certain property, and a "for-sale" sign on
the building "belied abandonment." Mitchell v. The City of New York,
#14-0767, 841 F.3d 72 (2nd Cir.).
Officers were engaged in arresting a juvenile who
was part of a group of juveniles running in the street after being released
from school. A woman motorist stopped her car and stood outside her vehicle
videotaping the arrest. An officer, from 50 feet away, yelled "Ma’am, pull
your car to the side or keep on going.” She replied, “I’m not going to let you
hurt that young boy. I ain’t moving.” The officer moved closer, told her this was
a traffic stop, and asked for her license. A struggle ensued and the woman was
arrested. At a trial of her false arrest claim, the court allowed the defense
attorney to present testimony that the plaintiff had been arrested three times
before. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers on all claims. A
federal appeals court ordered a new trial. The plaintiff's prior arrests were
not relevant to her claim for damages for this arrest, and any probative value
of those arrests was far outweighed by prejudice to the plaintiff, in violation
of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The trial court did not determine whether
the prior arrests involved conduct remotely similar to the arrest in this case,
and the defense counsel's questioning revealed that the evidence was admitted
for purposes of credibility, propensity, and character of the arrestee. Smith
v. Baltimore City Police Department, #15-1604, 840 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2016).
Customs and Border
Protection agents in Louisiana boarded a Greyhound bus and performed a routine
check of passengers' immigration status. A Mongolian citizen in the U.S. on an
H-1B temporary worker visa was unable to produce his immigration papers despite
a law requiring him to carry them. He was therefore arrested when the agents
were unable to verify his status, pursuant to the agecy's policy requiring
detention under these circumstances. He sued the U.S. government, claiming
false arrest and imprisonment under Louisiana law, as provided by the Federal
Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity by the federal government. The
claim was rejected under the discretionary function exception to the Federal
Tort Claims Act. The court concluded that an investigation into a perso's
immigratio status is considered discretionary when that investigation
culminates in a detainment mandated by an agency policy. Tsolmon v. United
States, #15-20609, 841 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2016).\]
There
was an injunction prohibiting a man from possessing a firearm. When two
deputies were escorting his ex-girlfriend into his home to remove her personal
belongings, they allegedly saw a firearm in plain view, resulting in his
arrest. He sued for unlawful search and seizure, but a federal appeals court
held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not
clearly established that their entry into the residence's sunroom under these
circumstances of the case would violate his rights. They were also entitled to
qualified immunity for alleged unlawful entry into the home from the sunroom when
the plaintiff consented to that entry. The seizure of the firearm was lawful
under the plain view doctrine. This gave them at least arguable probable cause
for the arrest. Fish v. Brown, #15-12348, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 17778, 26 Fla.
L. Weekly Fed. C 840 (11th Cir.).
An officer, standing by his patrol car after 2
a.m. talking with a local resident, observed a pickup truck with headlights off
approach a store and then disappear behind it. He activated his flashing lights
and went in pursuit. He subsequently arrested the driver for public
intoxication. Another individual walking by refused to answer whether he had
been in the pickup truck, obey orders, or produce identification, and
challenged what the officer was doing. He was himself arrested. A federal
appeals court upheld an award of qualified immunity to the defendant officer on
a false arrest claim by this arrestee. At the time of the arrest, the officer
could have reasonably believed that the plaintiff was interfering with his
investigative detention of the driver. A prior interpretation of a Wyoming
state statute suggested that speech alone might rise to the level of
interference with a police officer in the performance of his official duties.
Culver v. Armstrong, #15-8028, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 14583 (10th Cir.).
Officers smelled the odor of marijuana coming
from a woman's home and arrested her, charging her with two counts of child
endangerment. She had refused to allow them to search inside her residence and
she claimed that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering her
carport and approaching the back door of her home. The trial court in the
criminal case agreed and granted the plaintiff's motion to suppress the
evidence, after which the charges were dropped. She then sued for false arrest
without probable cause. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendant officers. Joining at least four other federal appeals circuits, the
Ninth Circuit took the position that the exclusionary rule does not apply in
Sec. 1983 federal civil rights lawsuits, holding that police officers may rely
on unlawfully obtained evidence to defend themselves against a constitutional
tort action for false arrest. It rejected the plaintiff's position that the
officer's unlawful entry into the curtilage of her home necessarily tainted the
following arrest. The plaintiff alleged no reason to doubt that the officers
actually smelled what they believed to be marijuana, that children were present
in the home, and that the plaintiff did not have medical marijuana privileges,
which provided the officers with probable cause to arrest. Lingo v. City of
Salem, #14-35344, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11708 (9th Cir.).
A man was a victim of a home invasion during
which a burglar punched him and locked him in a closet, after which a second
burglar entered. Police later arrested a suspect who was later acquitted and
sued for false arrest. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
arresting officers, finding that there was probable cause for the arrest at the
time it occurred. The victim identified the plaintiff as one of the burglars in
a photo array, a neighbor identified the plaintiff as someone seen loitering
outside the home at the time of the burglary, and the plaintiff's own son told
police that his father had recently committed some burglaries. The plaintiff
provided no evidence for his claim that the photo array was conducted
improperly and a search of his home had been authorized by a warrant. Jackson
v. City of Peoria, #14-3701, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10131 (7th Cir.).
A
man claimed that officers violated his rights when they arrested him without a
warrant three times for interfering with them during police interaction with
others. The defendant officers were entitled to summary judgment under the
independent intermediary doctrine because a grand jury found the arrests
supported by probable cause. The plaintiff had the burden of affirmatively
showing that the grand jury proceedings were tainted, and failed to do so. Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin PD, #15-50155, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 9971 (5th Cir.).
A sheriff's lieutenant
arrested the new owners agents at his foreclosed home. A federal appeals court
held that a jury could reasonably conclude on the record that the lieutenant
was not a tenant at sufferance after the finalized foreclosure and that he, and
not the plaintiffs, was the intruder at the property. The lieutenant lacked
even arguable probable cause for the arrests. Carter v. Filbeck,
#15-12529, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8010 (11th Cir.).
False arrest claims
were properly rejected where, when the officers first viewed some photographs,
they were justified in concluding that they qualified as unlawful child
pornography. The court also properly found that the force used by named officers
during the arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, as they had to push
him along because he lightly resisted. The force they used caused him no
injury, but the trial court erred in finding as matter of law that named
officers lacked a realistic opportunity to intervene in an alleged assault on
the plaintiff by an unidentified officer. Figueroa v. Mazza, 14-4116, 2016 U.S.
App. Lexis 10152 (2nd Cir.).
A man traveled to another city to assist
African-American youth. Another man, who was a local resident, offered him
accommodations at what he represented as his house, giving him a garage door
opener. The local resident, however, was only a squatter in the house, with no
legal right to be there. The true property owner arrived while the out of town
visitor was there, and summoned police, asking that they arrest him for
trespass. When police arrived, they found literature referring to Moorish
Science, belonging to the visitor. The officer claimed that they routinely make
arrests based on trespass complaints, while the arrestee asserted that they
remarked on his status as a Moor and congratulated themselves on detaining a
member of that sect. He claimed, in his lawsuit, that the officers would not
hsve arrested a Christian or an atheist under the circumstances. The trial
court believed that the law was clearly established that an officer may not
arrest someone believed to hold certain religious beliefs if they would not
arrest those of other religions in similar circumstances. But the court had doubt
about what a reasonable jury would infer about why the arrest was made. As the
denial was based on disputed facts rather than an issue law, the federal
appeals court dismissed the officer's appeal on the basis of lack of
jurisdiction. Nettles-Bey v. Williams, #15-2704, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6753 (7th
Cir.).
A man engaged in street preaching was arrested in
several incidents while carrying a shofar, a trumpet-like instrument made from
a ram's horn. commonly used in Jewish high holiday services to make loud
noises. He was arrested for possessing the shofar, which officers contended
violated an ordinance specifying the dimensions of signs and objects that could
be carried during street demonstrations. The shofar was 37 inches long and 6
inches wide. The ordinance stated that "All objects which are generally
rectangular in shape shall not exceed one-fourth inch in thickness and two
inches in width," and "All objects which are not generally
rectangular in shape shall not exceed three-quarters inch in their thickest
dimension." A federal appeals court held that the arresting officers were
entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest. They did not violate the Fourth
Amendment, as possession of the shofar provided a reasonable basis for his
detention, quite apart from disputed factual issues as to whether or not he
complied with officers' orders or stepped into the roadway. The officers also
did not violate the plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and it was clear that
they did not know of the religious significance of the shofar. Allen v.
Cisneros, #15-20264, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 4401 (5th Cir.).
Two African-American men and four female friends,
some of whom were Caucasian, walked past a police precinct while leaving an
entertainment district where they had spent the evening drinking. Off-duty
officers, including an African-American man, congregated in a nearby parking
lot and were drinking. The African-American officer approached the group
passing by and told them to move along, and referred to some of the females in
the group as "snow bunnies," intended as a racial slur. One of the
men questioned who the officer was. The officer allegedly said, "I'll show
you who I am," and attacked the man. Other off-duty officers then joined
in punching and kicking, and shouted "stop resisting arrest." Both
men were taken into custody and taken to a hospital. Charges of resisting,
public intoxication, and disorderly conduct were dismissed. Qualified immunity
was denied to the off-duty African-American officer, as a jury could reasonably
find that his conduct violated the arrestees' rights. McDonald v. Flake,
#14-6370, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3627 (6th Cir.).
A motorist claimed that four police officers in
two squad cars pulled him over as he drove home, pointed a gun at his face,
threatened to kill him, handcuffed him, and engaged in a search of his car, sll
without apparent reason. While the officers said they had no memory of the
incident, a computer in one of their cars confirmed that they ran the driver's
name through a law enforcement database at the alleged time of the stop, but
found nothing that would have justified stopping and searching his car. After a
jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers in a federal civil rights
lawsuit, a federal appeals court ordered a new trial. The court held that the
trial judge should not have admitted information about the plaintiff's prior
arrest record into evidence, nor allowed the defendants' attorney to
cross-examine the plaintiff about other, unrelated lawsuits he had pursued
against the city, in a manner designed to undermine his credibility by
depicting him as a chronic litigator. It was also erroneous to let one of the
officers testify generally about when it might be justified to use handcuffs
and firearms during a traffic stop. These errors were not harmless. Nelson v.
City of Chicago, #12-3401, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 959 (7th Cir.).
A man who engaged in filming airport security
procedures and was questioned there on suspicion of disorderly conduct was
arrested for concealing his identity from officers by declining to show
identification. He sued, claiming that he was arrested without probable cause
and in retaliation for engaging in protected speech in violation of the First
Amendment. A federal appeals court found that the defendant officers and
Transportation Security Administration agents were entitled to qualified
immunity, since a reasonable officer could have believed that he violated state
law by not showing identification during an investigatory stop, and could also
reasonably believe that they had probable cause to arrest him when he filmed at
an airport security checkpoint. Additionally, at the time of the arrest, it was
not clearly established that unlawful retaliation claims could arise from
arrests supported by probable cause. Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, #14-2063,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 435 (10th Cir.).
An officer carried out a traffic stop of a
motorist who failed to use his turn signal before changing lanes. The driver
did not cooperate with the officer and his partner, disregarding instructions,
leading to a physical confrontation. A sergeant also arrived on the scene. The
first officer placed the driver under arrest for resisting, but the charges
were dismissed at court. In a lawsuit alleging false arrest and excessive
force, a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant
officers, relying on a dashcam video of the incident and rejecting the argument
that there were material issues of fact relating to the plaintiff's claims. Williams
v. Brooks, #15-1763, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 68 (7th Cir.).
A man going through a TSA checkpoint at an
airport was carrying medication with him that a TSA agent selected for testing.
The man objected, worried that the testing would contaminate the medicine. A
discussion about the sterility and toxicity of the sampling strip ensued and
the incident ended with the man's arrest. He sued the TSA agent and a city
police officer, claiming that the arrest was made without probable cause and
that the two conspired to fabricate grounds for the arrest. It appeared to the
officer, the court found, that the plaintiff at one point rolled his bag
towards the TSA agent and hit him, providing arguable probable cause for the
arrest and entitling him to qualified immunity. Claims against the agent were
also rejected for failure to state a claim. Shimomura v. Carlson, #14-1418,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 22793 (10th Cir.).
A D.C. regulation forbids anyone from camping on
public property without the mayor's approval. Members of the "Occupy
Movement" sued, claiming that their arrests violated their constitutiobal
rights under the Fourth and First Amendments. A federal appeals court held that
the officers had probable cause for the arrests as the plaintiffs clearly set
up a tent as defined by the regulation on public land without authorization.
Qualified immunity protected the officers from liability on the plaintiffs'
claim that they were arrested in retaliation for their protests in violation of
the First Amendment, as such arrests based on probable cause did not violate
clearly established law. Dukore v. District of Columbia, #13-7150, 799 F.3d
1137 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
A former police officer sued over an off-duty
incident in which, after several persons attacked him, other officers allegedly
falsely arrested him, detained him for five days, and denied him access to
medical care for his three broken ribs. While the criminal charges against him
were dropped, the police department allegedly held an administrative hearing
and fired him because of the incident. His prior lawyer in the civil lawsuit
filed a stipulation with the court dismissing most of his claims. The
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asked the court to reopen the case because the
stipulation was purportedly filed without his knowledge. A federal appeals
court, vacating the trial court's refusal to reopen the case, held that there
was a factual dispute over the prior attorney's authority to stipulate to the
dismissal of the claims, making it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on
the issue. The trial court had relied on the proposition that parties are
deemed bound by the acts of their lawyers. Gomez v. City of New York, #14-3583,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19355 (2nd Cir.).
An arrestee sued for false arrest in violation
of his federal civil rights. During deliberations following the trial of his
claims, the jury asked the court whether “refusal to acknowledge/respond to
police questions [is] considered obstruction of governmental
administration," an offense he had been charged with. The trial judge told
them that “[r]efusal to answer police questions alone, without more, would not
constitute obstruction of governmental administration,” but then added that
whether it could amount to that offense would “depend on the totality of the
circumstances as you find them.” A federal appeals court vacated a verdict for
the defense, noting that New York state criminal law is unambiguous that a
person does not obstruct governmental administration if all they did was refuse
to answer police questions or provide identification, as both actions were
constitutionally protected. Further, such obstruction requires a physical or
independently unlawful action. A new trial was therefore ordered. Uzoukwu v.
Krawiecki, #13-3483, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19372 (2nd Cir.).
A couple and their three children, driving
home from a family outing, were stopped by two deputies (one female and one
male). The female deputy initiated the stop because she mistakenly believed
that the vehicle was stolen. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs
were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim against the female
deputy because the arrest, which was without probable cause, was the result of
her unreasonable conduct. Ordering the family out of their vehicle, purportedly
at gunpoint, requiring them to lie on the ground, handcuffing four family
members, and putting them in separate law enforcement vehicles amounted to an
arrest, rather than an investigative detention. The male deputy in the incident
was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim as he could rely
on information conveyed to him by the female deputy, which he did not know was
mistaken. Because of disputed issues of material fact on an excessive force
claim, neither the two deputies nor the plaintiffs were entitled to summary
judgment on that claim. The disputed issues included whether the deputies
pointed loaded guns at the family and how a nine-year-old child was treated
during the incident. Maresca v. County of Bernalillo, #14-2163, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 18425 (10th Cir.).
The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, sued the FBI for
violations of constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, claiming that FBI agents detained, interrogated, and
tortured him over the course of four months in three countries in Africa.
Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, the federal appeals court stated that
when the actions occurred during a terrorism investigation, "special
factors" required hesitation in allowing a Bivens lawsuit for money
damages. Bivens actions are usually not favored in cases involving the
military, national security, or intelligence gathering. Further, the U.S.
Supreme Court had never “created or even favorably mentioned a nonstatutory
right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the
borders of the United States.” The issue of remedies involving matters of
foreign policy and national security are usually left to the political branches
of government. Meshal v. Higgenbotham, #14-5194, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 18453
(D.C. Cir.).
In
the course of investigating a reported disturbance in an apartment building
parking lot, an officer knocked on an apartment door where it was possible the
people involved in the disturbance had gone. The man who answered the door
denied any involvement in the earlier dispute and declined to identify himself.
The officer reached inside the apartment, handcuffed the man, and arrested him
on the basis of his refusal to provide biographical information or identity. A
federal appeals court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances, an
officer could not lawfully conduct the equivalent of a Terry investigative stop
inside a man's residence. But in this case, since the law on that subject was
not clearly established, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on an
unlawful arrest claim. Moore v. Pederson, #14-14201, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16440
(11th Cir.).
A man told an officer that while he was sleeping
his neighbor had entered his home, possibly by prying open a bathroom window,
grabbed and threatened him, and put his hand down the front of his pants. When
the officer questioned the neighbor, he allegedly said, without prompting, that
he had not entered the man's bathroom or gotten into his pants. The neighbor
later denied having made these statements. The complainant identified the
neighbor as the man who had assaulted him. The officer arrested the neighbor on
a variety of charges and he was later acquitted. A federal appeals court found
that the officer had probable cause for the arrest and that the officer abd the
city were both immune from Indiana state law malicious prosecution claims. A
federal malicious prosecution claim could not go forward as the plaintiff did
not allege a separate constitutional injury or show that the officer lacked
probable cause or acted with malice. Howlett v. Hack, #14-1351, 794 F.3d 721
(7th Cir. 2015).
A motorist claimed that he was arrested for
marijuana possession without probable cause when an officer found two leaves in
his car during a consensual search during a traffic stop. Charges were later
dropped when a crime lab found that the leaves did not contain detectible
amounts of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana. The
officer, although ultimately mistaken, was entitled to qualified immunity on a
false arrest claim, as a reasonable officer could believe that the leaves found
were marijuana, giving him probable cause. New v. Denver, #13-3330, 787 F.3d
895 (8th Cir. 2015).
A claim for unlawful warrantless arrest survived
summary judgment, a federal appeals court ruled, because the plaintiffs, a
female high school student and her family, provided sufficient evidence to
create a genuine dispute over whether or not, during an incident at school, the
student had reached for an officer's gun and whether the officer knew that the
student closed a gate, barring entrance to a school hallway. The court rejected
the excessive force claim against the officer. Even if his shove of the student
was unnecessary, it was not unreasonable, and the officer's pulling of the
student's arm was not a Fourth Amendment violation because the student was then
trying to escape arrest, and the officer had a right to prevent her from doing
so.Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha, #14-1513, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10796
(1st Cir.).
The plaintiffs, who were illegal aliens,
sought to pursue Bivens civil rights claims against federal border patrol
agents who allegedly illegally stopped and arrested them. A federal appeals
court, noting that it had not previously extended Bivens civil rights actions
to include claims arising from civil immigration apprehensions and detentions,
other than those involving excessive force, declined to do so. It further found
that the comprehensive rules and remedies found in immigration statutes and
regulations precluded "crafting" an implied damages remedy. Allowing
claims for damages in this context, which were likely to be minimal, would be
unlikely to provide significant additional deterrence to illegal acts, and the
court also noted that there were serious separation of powers issues that would
be implicated in trying to do so. De La Paz v. Coy, #13-50768, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 7977 (5th Cir.).
Three officers were sued for ther involvement in the
warrantless arrest of a vehicle passenger for possession of cocaine and drug
paraphernalia, charges which were later dropped. A federal appeals court held
that summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunty was proper on a false
arrest claim, as the officers had probable cause for the arrest because one
officer saw the plaintiff throw a crack pipe out of his car window. Two of the
arresting officers, however, were not entitled to qualified immunity because
they allegedly delayed seeking medical care when the passenger was shot in the
genitals, acting with deliberate indifference and reporting his injury as a
"laceration." The third officer, who arrived later, was entitled to
qualified immunity, however, as there was no indication that he knew that the
other officers caused a delay in medical care. Valderrama v. Rousseau,
#13-15752, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4116 (11th Cir.).
A high school student was detained for 23 days
while police investigated a schoolyard fight that caused the death of another
student. A video of the fight showed a male student who punched the victim as
he tried to stand up, and the plaintiff was identified as one of two assailants
by an officer assigned to the school, by another student, and by two school
staff members, who all viewed the video. Charges initially made against the
plaintiff were ultimately dropped when it was established that he was not
involved in the incident. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for
the defendant officers, finding that they had probable cause to make the arrest
on the basis of the identifications by those who viewed the video, so there was
no false arrest. As to the length of the detention, it was not excessive or
unreasonable, as there was no indication that any of the defendants imposed a
deelay for improper motives such as punishing the plaintiff or "drumming
up" evidence merely to justify his arrest. Bailey v. City of Chicago,
#13-3670, 779 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2015).
A group of advocates for homeless peopl were
threatened with arrest and then arrested for loud chanting to protest an
organized walk by elected officials and their supporters through a skid row
area. They were charged under a state statute under which "willfully disturb
or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character"
other than a political meeting, is a misdemeanor. A federal appals court found
that, while the statute in question was not facially unconstitutional, it was
unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff's behavior, or political meetings
as occurred here. The statute was improperly applied in this case to a group's
protest of a meeting of public officials and members of the public to discuss
conditions in the skid row area. As to public meetings in which people assemble
to consider "public questions," arrests of protestors are only
allowable if a protestor engages in "threats, intimidations, or unlawful
violence," not for non-violent political protest. CPR For Skid Row v. City
of Los Angeles, #12-55289,779 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2015).
Police pulled over a female motorist based on
confusing statements concerning a male suspect heard by a 911 operator during a
phone call. The woman claimed that the officers ordered her out of her car at
gunpoint, threw her on the ground, handcuffed her, and detained her for
approximately ten minutes. The male suspect was not in the car. A federal
appeals court upheld a denial of qualified immunity to the officers. If the
woman's version of the incident were true, the officers used excessive force
against her despite the fact that she was clearly afraid and was completely
cooperating with their orders. While there had been reasonable suspicion to
make the stop, if the plaintiff's version of events were true, the incident
turned into an unlawful arrest when the officers continued after determining
that she was a woman alone in the car. Brown v. Lewis, #14-1392, 2015 U.S. App.
Lewis 2917, 2004 Fed. App. 354P (6th Cir.).
Police arrested a man and jailed him for over 50
hours when they mistakenly thought he was a serial ank robber. He se the
officers and the city after his release, but the claims against the city became
a separate lawsuit which was stayed until resolution of the suit against the
individual officers, in which a jury awarded $60,000. A federal appeals court
ruled that the trial court then erroneously interpreted a motion to lift the
stay and amend his complaint in the lawsuit against the city as a waiver of all
but two of his several policy-or-practice claims against the city, and also
improperly dismissed that lawsuit after erroneously treating the city's
certification that it would indemnify the officers as an offer under Fed. Rule
of Civil Procedure 68 to pay the award against the officers and nominal damages
of $1 for municipal liability claims. The lawsuit against the city was
reinstated and the plaintiff was entitled to amend his complaint within 21 days
after the city filed a responsive pleading after the stay was lifted. Swanigan
v. City of Chicago, #12-1261, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 396 (7th Cir.).
A motorist, having driven to a store's parking
lot and exited his car, was ordered to get back into his vehicle and show his
driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance by an officer who exited
a police vehicle that pulled in behind him. He was arrested for refusing to
comply, and subsequently pled guilty to driving on a suspended or revoked
license. He argued in a lawsuit that the officer had no basis for ordering him
to reenter his vehicle and that the order to do so constituted an unreasonable
seizure. The federal appeals court rejected a lower court ruling that the
lawsuit was barred by the conviction because a judgment in the plaintiff's
favor would imply that the conviction was invalid. Because the plaintiff had
pled guilty, a finding of illegal seizure would have no relevance to the
validity of the plea and subsequent sentence. Rollins v. Willett, #14-2115, 770
F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2014).
A man at a legal casino presented what appeared
to be an altered driver's license while trying to collect a slot machine
jackpot. He was briefly handcuffed, detained, and turned over to police. Each
of these actions by an Illinois Gaming Board agent were carried out in the
exercise of his statutory duties arising from his state employment, so he was
entitled to sovereign immunity on false imprisonment and intentional infliction
of emotional distress state law claims. Even if he acted without probable
cause, he did not act beyond the scope of his authority. The intermediate
Illinois appeals court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the casino and casino
security supervisor on a false imprisonment claim. Grainger v. Harrah's Casino, #3-13-002, 2014 IL App (3d) 130029,
2014 Ill. App. Lexis 670.
Officers arrested everyone at a party at a
residence for unlawful entry, based on the fact that the host had not finalized
a rental agreement to live there, and therefore had no right to hold a party
there. A federal appeals court ruled that there was no probable cause for the
arrest in light of the undisputed fact that at the time of the arrests the
officers knew that the guests had been invited there by a woman they reasonably
believed to be a lawful resident. There also was no probable cause for a disorderly
conduct arrest, as there was no evidence of any disturbance of sufficient
magnitude to violate local law. Because a supervising sergeant on the scene
overstepped clear law by directing that the arrests be made, the District of
Columbia was liable for negligent supervision. Wesby v. D.C., #12-7127, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 16893 (D.C. Cir.).
A mass arrest of 700 Occupy Wall Street
demonstrators was made after they walked onto a bridge roadway. The arrestees
claimed that this violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs
alleged that the officers directed their activity along the route that led to
them entering the bridge. If the facts were as alleged, no reasonable officer
could have believed that the warning to clear the roadway was sufficiently
audible for the crowd to hear it. Further, the demonstrators alleged that the
officers had retreated onto the bridge in a manner that could be reasonably
understood to constitute a continuation of the officers' earlier practice of
allowing the demonstrators to proceed in violation of traffic laws. Garcia v.
Does, #12-2634, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 16156 (2nd Cir.).
Police responded to a 911 call regarding a verbal
argument between a man and his girlfriend. The man had locked the woman out,
with her keys inside the apartment, but no physical attack had occurred. The
man did not want to talk to the officers. One of them prevented him from
closing the door, entered his home, and refused to leave. The man called his
attorney and did not comply with a demand that he get off the phone. An officer
told him that he was under arrest, and two officers each grabbed one of his
wrists, resulting in a struggle on the floor. The officers lacked consent, a
warrant, or exigent circumstances to enter the home, and they lacked probable
cause to arrest him for theft of his girlfriend's keys. There was, however, a
disputed issue of fact as to whether the officers had probable cause to arrest
the plaintiff for disorderly conduct, as the arrestee denied that he had yelled
at the officers. Hawkins v. Mitchell, #13-2533, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 11906 (7th
Cir.).
An officer had at least arguable probable cause
to arrest a man for trespass for refusal to leave a bus stop after he was
observed waiting there without getting on any bus, so the officer was entitled
to qualified immunity. While the plaintiff described being pepper sprayed as
painful, there was insufficient evidence of more than "de minimus" (minimal)
injury, so the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force
claim. The officer was not entitled, however, to qualified immunity on a
retaliatory use of force claim, as he argued that the pepper spray had been
used in retaliation for his protected First Amendment speech of asking for the
officer's badge number. Peterson v. Kopp, #12-3776, 754 F.3d 594 (8th Cir.
2014).
Five men initially convicted and then
exonerated of involvement in the 1989 brutal rape and beating of a female
jogger in Central Park in New York City have reached a $40 million settlement
in a lawsuit over their arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonment. The proposed
settlement works out to approximately $1 million for each year the plaintiffs
spent incarcerated. They claimed that incriminating statements they had made
had been coerced. They were convicted in 1990 and incarcerated, but DNA and
other evidence later showed that the beating and rape had not been committed by
the five black and Hispanic teenagers, who were ages 14 to 16 at the time of
the crime, but by another person, a convicted rapist and murderer who stated in
a confession that he acted alone. McRay v. City of New York, #1:03-cv-09685,
U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y), reported in The New York Times, June 19, 2014.
Worried that a tractor-trailer stopped on the
shoulder of a highway ramp posed a safety hazard, a state trooper approached
and observed that the engine was running with no one visible in the cab.
Knocking on the door caused the driver to emerge from the sleeper area of the
cab. His breath smelled of alcohol, his eyes appeared red and glassy, his
speech was slurred and he admitted having consumed a "couple" of
"small pitchers" of beer at a truck stop an hour before. He could not
explain why he stopped on the ramp to sleep rather than going to a rest stop
200 to 300 feet away. After he failed two sobriety tests, and almost lost his
balance, he was arrested, and a breathalyzer recorded a .111% blood-alcohol
content. A jury acquitted him after a state court found probable cause for the
arrest. A federal appeals court found that the state court finding of probable
cause in the criminal proceeding did not preclude a federal civil rights
lawsuit for false arrest. Ohio, in its state law, did not give trial courts the
final word on probable cause, and the plaintiff had not had an opportunity to
appeal the probable cause issue since he was acquitted. Bradley v. Reno,
#13-3983, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 7279, 2014 Fed App. 0081P (6th Cir.).
A man sued Chicago police who arrested him on
drug possession charges, as well as solicitation of an unlawful act. After he
spent 19 days in jail, the charges were dismissed for want of probable cause.
The plaintiff and the officers had differing accounts of the events that led to
his arrest, which did involve someone in the vicinity shouting
"rocks," referring to drugs. In a false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and illegal search lawsuit, a jury returned a verdict for the
defendant officers. A federal appeals court upheld the jury verdict. “This was
a swearing contest, and nothing precluded the jury from crediting the
defendants’ account of what occurred.” Venson v. Altamirano, #12-1015, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 7334 (7th Cir.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for making a warrantless arrest of a woman who was nursing her baby in her home
and leading her out of her home based on an invalid recalled arrest warrant for
failing to appear in court to contest a simple traffic violation. Following a
strip search and a body cavity search, she was held in jail overnight, which
was the first time she had been separated from her infant. A federal appeals
court found that no reasonable officer could actually believe that the
warrantless arrest was lawful under the alleged facts. Bechman v. Magill,
#13-1142, 745 F.3d 331 (8th Cir. 2014).
A deputy pulled a female motorist over for an
expired vehicle registration sticker, and the date on the sticker was different
than that in the Secretary of State's records, so she was let go. The deputy
was later notified that the sticker was stolen, a felony offense, and went to
the woman's home to arrest her, being met there by a second deputy. The woman's
boyfriend, who owned the house, answered the door and refused to let the
deputies enter without a warrant. The deputies said that they smelled an odor
of burning marijuana from inside the home, and they attempted to enter, which
the boyfriend resisted. He was found with a half-burnt marijuana joint and was
charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, a charge that was later
dismissed. The trial court held that the officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity on false arrest and excessive force claims, as there had
been no exigency justifying a warrantless entry, which violated a clearly
established right. A federal appeals court reversed, stating that there was
"fractured" caselaw on whether detecting the smell of marijuana
justified a warrantless entry, so that it was not clearly established at the
time of the incident that a warrantless entry was not justified. White v.
Stanley, #13-2131, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4467 (7th Cir.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a woman
for violating a state open-container law even though the flask found under her
car seat proved to be empty. At the time, she was a passenger in her husband's
car after midnight, and he was being arrested under a warrant. The officer's
actions were reasonable in light of the time of day, the woman's
non-cooperative attitude, and her repeatedly asking to urinate. Because the
officer's actions did not demonstrate either plain incompetence or a knowing
violation of the law, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Branch v. Gorman,
#12-3545, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2601 (8th Cir.).
If an arrested hunter's version of events were
true (that he had not yelled or spoken in a confrontational manner to a game
warden), then a brief unintentional touching did not provide probable cause or
even arguable probable cause for an arrest. The game warden was therefore not
entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. He was, however,
entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claim that the handcuffs were
too tight, causing him injuries and later contributing to his development of
carpal tunnel syndrome. Rooni v. Biser, #13-1511, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2135
(7th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to stop and arrest a
motorist for speeding based on their radar gun's readings despite his challenge
to their arrest of him for DUI. Additionally, as his blood alcohol reading was
over the legal limit despite his claim that he had only one beer. The officers
were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim when the plaintiff
presented no evidence of any inaccuracy in the radar gun. Jones v. City of
Elkhart, #12-3912, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 24744 (7th Cir.).
A federal district court is allowing an
"Occupy D.C." demonstrator to proceed with his claim that he was
arrested for using profanity in violation of his First Amendment rights. Based
on the facts alleged, no reasonable officer could have believed that there was
probable cause for an arrest for disorderly conduct. The words spoken did not
risk provoking violence. All he did was make the remark, addressed to no one in
particular, "Ah, this fucking bullshit" when observing several people
carrying pro-Tea Party signs entering a federal park. The Tea Party people did
not respond, but U.S. Park police arrested him. Patterson v. U.S.A.,
#13-cv-0085, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 178087(D.D.C.).
There was ample evidence to support a jury's
verdict in favor of four officers involved in the search and seizure and arrest
of the plaintiff on drug charges. The officers observed what appeared to be
open drug sales of crack cocaine in a lot involving four men and a juvenile
with passersby attracted into a lot by yells of "rocks, rocks,"
referring to cocaine. There was probable cause for the search, seizure and
arrest, so there could be no liability despite the fact that the plaintiff was
later acquitted. The plaintiff's argument that one officer arranged to have
three others join him in fabricating a drug bust to bolster the possibility
that he would be assigned to the narcotics squad was characterized as "far
fetched." Morrow v. May, #12-1329, 735 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2013).
A deputy stopped a car that belonged to an
ammunition salesman. The motorist stated that he had ammunition, a .22 caliber
pistol, a 9-millimeter handgun, and an AK-47 in his trunk. The deputy asked to
be shown the weapons, and, once he was, arrested the motorist for violating a
state weapons statute. The deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity on a
false arrest claim, since, under applicable Arkansas state law, he reasonably
should have known that an arrest for violation of the statute at issue required
a showing that a person had a purpose "to employ the handgun, knife, or
club as a weapon against a person." There was, therefore, a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether he had probable cause for the arrest. Stoner v. Watlingten,
#12-3383, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22586 (8th Cir.).
An officer who was working off-duty, but in full
uniform, asked a woman to move her car from the parking lot of a bar before it
was towed. The woman reacted by cursing and "speaking loudly." The
officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting the woman for
disorderly conduct, since the facts, taken in the most favorable light for the
plaintiff, showed that there was no arguable probable cause for the arrest.
There is no right to arrest people exercising their right to free speech, even
in a loud manner, and the officer himself admitted that the woman had used no
language that was insulting or degrading, only saying "hell" and
"damn," and not even directing those words at him. A sergeant who was
not even on the scene, however, was granted qualified immunity for lack of
personal involvement there, and only relied on the arresting officer as to
there having been grounds for an arrest. Wilkerson v. Seymour, #12-15938, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 22058, (11th Cir..).
A police officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity from a claim that he violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting a man
in his home without a warrant. At the time the plaintiff tried to close the
door on the officer, he was standing in his home, so that a reasonable officer
should have known that he could not be pulled out and placed under arrest in
the absence of a warrant or exigent circumstances. The appeals court lacked
jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's cross appeal objecting to the trial
court's grant of qualified immunity to two other defendants when the court had
not issued a final order. Mitchell v. Shearrer, #12-1931, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis
18756 (8th Cir.).
A man was arrested for a suspected drug offense
based on information from a confidential informant. At the police station, he
was subjected to a visual body cavity search, which uncovered drugs. The man's
conviction was overturned, with the search ruled illegal. The defendant
officers were entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and unlawful
search claims, since there had been arguable probable cause to arrest the
plaintiff and a reasonable officer at the time of the arrest would not have
known that conducting a suspicionless visual body cavity search of a felony
drug arrestee was unlawful. Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, #11-5403, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 17943 (2nd Cir.).
A federal appeals court overturned a grant of
qualified immunity to an officer who used a Taser in the dart mode against a
man and threatened to also use it on his wife. The Taser was used on the man, a
passive bystander, who allegedly failed to immediately comply with an order to
go away from the location where his neighbor was being arrested. If the facts
were as the plaintiffs alleged, the man's accused offense was minor, and his
actions, distance from the officers,, and demeanor did not provide a reason to
believe that he posed a threat to anyone's safety. In 2008, the time of the
incident, it was well known that the firing of a Taser dart was more than
trivial force and would be unconstitutional if deployed against a passive
bystander. The court also alleged municipal liability claims to continue as
there was an issue of fact as to whether an alleged city policy allowing
officers to use Tasers against a non-threatening suspect caused an
unconstitutional use of force. There was also a factual issue as to whether
there had been probable cause to arrest the male plaintiff for obstructing an
officer. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, #12-35121, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 18595
(9th Cir.).
A 14-year-old boy claimed that police arrested
him without probable cause for disorderly conduct when he was standing outside
a building waiting for his mother, not doing anything illegal. He further
claimed that an officer later used excessive force by shoving him into a
holding cell, causing him to hit his head on a hard surface. The officers
claimed that he was drinking and fell because he was intoxicated. The jury
returned a verdict for the defendant officers. Reversing for a new trial, a
federal appeals court held that the defendants were improperly allowed to cross
examine the plaintiff about a subsequent unrelated underage drinking arrest to
try to convince the jury that he had been intoxicated at the time of his first
arrest. They were also improperly allowed to question him about a subsequent
conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. The improper questioning was not
harmless, since it could not be said that it did not substantially sway the
jury. Barber v. City of Chicago, #12-2562, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16047 (7th
Cir.).
A town has reached an $11.6 million settlement
with a family whose home was raided without a search warrant by officers in
2003, with officers allegedly arresting five family members without probably
cause and beating them up. No convictions were obtained on any of the charges.
The plaintiffs claimed that one family member, a boy who was 17 years old at
the time of the incident, subsequently developed a mental illness as a result of
the beating and an alleged threat by one officer to kill him if he didn't leave
town. They claimed that he now requires 24 hours a day supervision. Ramos v.
Cicero, #1:04-cv-02502, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill.).
A member of a “cop watch” group was holding a
video camera on the street while talking on a cell phone. An officer told him
that he had to move, and he replied that he was conducting a “cop watch.” The
man compiled with orders to “come here” and walked toward a police van. When he
got there, an officer allegedly exit the van, knocked the cell phone and video
camera out of his hands, told him to turn around, and handcuffed him, after
which two officers started to beat him. A chokehold was allegedly used on him,
and he was pushed into a police van without warning, causing him to fall and
strike his face against the floor. The trial court found that the officers were
entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim because, at the time
of the incident (2008), it was not clearly established in the 8th Circuit that
an officer violates the rights of an arrestee by applying force that causes
only "de minimis" (minimal) injuries. Here, the arrestee's contusions
and swelling were injuries classified as de minimis. The officers were not,
however, entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim since,
under the plaintiff's version of the incident, he was not trespassing or
obstructing the sidewalk, and no reasonable officers could have concluded that
he was committing those crimes. Robinson v. City of Minneapolis, #10-3067, 2013
U.S. Dist. Lexis 106342 (D. Minn.).
A woman claimed that officers arrested her on
false charges and subsequently conspired together with other officers to
prevent her from filing a lawsuit for false arrest. There was strong evidence
that two officers conspired with the arresting officers to conceal facts that
could be the basis of a legal claim for false arrest and detention, so they
were not entitled to qualified immunity. The woman was arrested by an officer who
stopped by her own home to obtain her medicine and who was upset that the
woman, her son's girlfriend, was present in the son's bedroom. When she was
unable to get a ride to leave, she was arrested for trespassing. Among other
things, the female officer's name was allegedly later removed from an incident
report as she was on limited administrative duty at the time, without authority
to participate in an arrest. L. v. Board of Police Commissioners, #12-3193,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16101 (8th Cir.).
When officers saw a man
carrying a holstered gun on his hip in public, they handcuffed and detained him
for approximately 90 minutes while trying to determine the validity of a
carrying license he presented, one issued mostly to security officers and
private detectives that they were not familiar with. He was released when they
did confirm the license was valid. The federal appeals court found that the
officers were entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim. Even
had they known about the type of license presented, it would have been
reasonable under the circumstances to detain the plaintiff until they could
confirm its validity. While the length of the detention may have been
unfortunate, that was attributed to the government's failure to have an
efficient license verification system. One of the officers, however, was not
entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that a preexisting medical condition
was worsened by the handcuffs being too tight. Rabin v. Flynn, #11-3904, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 13802 (7th Cir.).
A man was stopped while walking away from his
brother's home after an argument. He was arrested after he was identified from
a photographic lineup by a kidnapping victim. He was charged with kidnapping
and subsequently indicted by a grand jury, and spent seventeen months in
custody awaiting trial before the charges were dropped because the complaining
witness was unavailable, possibly having moved to Germany. The New Hampshire
Supreme Court found that the grand jury indictment did not entitle the law
enforcement defendants in a false imprisonment lawsuit to statutory or official
immunity because the finding of probable cause for prosecution by the grand
jury did not establish that his arrest was supported by probable cause or that
his arrest was not made in a wanton or reckless manner. The court found that it
could be concluded that there was no probable cause to arrest as a result of
inconsistencies in the kidnap victim's description and photographic
identification, and the actual appearance of the plaintiff at the time of the
arrest. The dismissal of the lawsuit was reversed. The malicious prosecution
claim was rejected, however, based on the grand jury indictment. Ojo v.
Lorenzo, #2012-510, 64 A.3d 974, 2013 N.H. Lexis 35.
When officers could have reasonably believed that
a man had attempted to cause serious physical injury to a person, they had
probable cause to arrest him. They could rely on the victim's statement and did
not need to take a statement from the arrestee's neighbor, who did not witness
the fight in question. Both false arrest and malicious prosecution claims were
rejected. Joseph v. Allen, #12-2411, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7459 (8th Cir.).
A man was arrested and taken into custody for
trespass because he was standing by himself inside a fenced-in playground that
had no trespassing signs at all entrances. A federal appeals court overturned
judgment for the defendant officers, finding that a state statute that provided
ten broad grounds for making a custodial arrest applied to misdemeanors but not
to infractions, which came under a statute specifying three narrower grounds
for custodial arrests for infractions. The court ruled that judgment should be
entered for the plaintiff, followed by a trial on damages. The court upheld,
however, a jury's rejection of an unlawful search claim, as the error on the
false arrest standard did not taint the determination that no strip search had
occurred. Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, #11-15655, 599 F .3d 946
(9th Cir.).
When a man and a magistrate's daughter ended
their engagement, the man tried to retrieve a diamond engagement ring and other
items of personal property. Following that, allegations were made that he had
stolen his ex-girlfriend's dog. This resulted in a police chase down rural
roads and a brief arrest of the man and his father. Both arrestees then filed a
false arrest and conspiracy lawsuit against the magistrate, the deputy who made
the arrest, and the deputy's supervisor. A federal appeals court ruled that
there had been probable cause for the arrests, and that no excessive force was
used by the deputy in grabbing the son by the arm, forcing him to the ground,
placing him in handcuffs, and searching him, since the deputy could not have
known whether he was armed or would resist arrest. There was no real evidence
of conspiracy, and the magistrate did not act under color of law in reporting
the alleged theft of the dog. Myers v. Bowman, #11-14802, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis
7216 (11th Cir.).
Police
arrested a woman's son for driving a vehicle involved in an accident. The woman
and her son's girlfriend, who witnessed the accident, went to the police
station, where the girlfriend was told to remain and threatened with a warrant
for her arrest being obtained if she left. The woman counseled the girlfriend
to leave, however, and escorted her out. She was charged with witness
tampering, although that charge was later dismissed. A federal appeals court
found that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity on as
federal false arrest claim and official immunity under New Hampshire law on a
state malicious prosecution claim, as there was at least arguable probable
cause for the arrest. Moses v. Mele, #12-1729, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 6150 (1st Cir.).
A motorist adequately alleged that officers
arrested him in retaliation for his First Amendment protected expressive
activity after he was cited for violating a noise ordinance. The officer
allegedly told the motorist that if he cooperated he would get off with a
ticket, but that "if you run your mouth, I will book you in jail for
it." When he later was taken into custody and was being taken to a booking
facility, he was allegedly told that it was because he was playing his music
too loud and had "acted like a fool." The appeals court found that,
if true, this violated his clearly established First Amendment right to be free
from action motivated by retaliation even if probable cause existed for his
initial arrest on the noise violation alone. A reasonable officer would have
known that he could not exercise his discretion to book a person in retaliation
for First Amendment activity. Ford v. City of Yakima, #11-35319, 2013 U.S. App.
Lexis 2716 (9th Cir.).
A man and his wife traveling in a car with the
wife driving encountered a police officer using a radar device. The husband
knew this because he had a radar detector. He gave the officer "the
finger" to express his disapproval of what the officer was doing. The
officer stopped the vehicle, which had not been speeding or committing any
traffic violations. When both occupants got out, they were ordered to get back
in the car, which they did. Subsequently, the husband again got out of the
vehicle, seeking to speak to the three officers present, and repeated twice
that he felt "like an ass." He was arrested for disorderly conduct.
Reversing summary judgment for the defendant officers, a federal appeals court
ruled that the vehicle stop was not lawful, and that qualified immunity for the
officers was improper, since a reasonable officer would not have thought that
the mere insult of "giving the finger" provided a basis for
initiating a law enforcement process, or that there was probable cause for a
disorderly conduct arrest. A malicious prosecution claim also should not have
been rejected on the basis of summary judgment for the defendants. Swartz v.
Insogna, #11-2846, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 186 (2nd Cir.).
Officers were not liable for violating the rights
of a Hispanic man who was arrested and removed from a city council meeting
where he voiced opposition to the city's proposed agreement with federal
authorities for immigration enforcement in the city. In a prior meeting, he had
called the mayor a "racist pig," and in this meeting, he had called
for his supporters in the audience to rise. He was removed and arrested under a
city ordinance prohibiting "disorderly, insolent, or disruptive"
actions at such official meetings. While the use of the term
"insolent" made the ordinance overbroad, the deletion of the term would
make the ordinance constitutional. At the time of the arrest, the officers
acted in an objectively reasonable manner by believing that the ordinance was
valid and justified his removal. Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, #10-56854, 694
F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2012).
Police lacked probable cause to make a
warrantless arrest of a man for third-degree menacing. The information that
they had merely indicated that he had approached a woman in her driveway and
insisted that her car had hit his. She asked him to leave and ran into her
house, and he left. The woman never said that she felt physically threatened or
that the arrestee took any assaultive actions. Summary judgment was improper on
a false arrest claim. Ackerson v. City of White Plains, #11-4649, 2012 U.S.
App. Lexis 24612 (2nd Cir.).
Police received a 911 call reporting that a
15-year-old girl had made statements indicating that she planned to kill
herself by taking ibuprofen pills. Three officers and emergency medical
personnel went to the girl's home where the girl admitted to the statements but
said she had changed her mind. An officer told her she had to go to the
hospital, and while the girl's parents first disagreed, they relented after the
officer said they could be charged with assisted manslaughter if their daughter
then killed herself. The girl's mother first refused to accompany her daughter
to the hospital, but then did so, later suing for false arrest based on a claim
that the officer had insisted that she accompany her daughter. In a false
arrest lawsuit brought by the girl's mother, the officer was entitled to
qualified immunity as the mother was not seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. There was no indication that the officer displayed a weapon,
physically touched the mother, or intimidated her with a threatening presence
to compel her to go. James v. City of Wilkes Barre, #11-3345, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 24592 (3rd Cir.).
Plaintiffs entered into a $30,000 settlement
agreement with a city and police officers on claims arising out of their
arrest. The settlement was offered by the defendants under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68. Subsequently, the trial court awarded a total of
$290,997.94 in costs to the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, including
$286,065.00 in attorneys' fees. The appeals court rejected the argument that
the Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle all claims should have been interpreted
to include any costs, including attorneys' fees, when that was not specified.
It also rejected the argument that the fee award was disproportionate to the
success achieved in the litigation, as the defendants had not preserved that
argument for appeal. Barbour v. City of White Plains, #11-2229, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 23386 (2nd Cir.).
Police officers did not violate the First
Amendment rights of demonstrators at the Madison Square Garden 2004 Republican
National Convention by arresting those who failed to comply with orders to move
from an area were demonstrating was prohibited to a designated demonstration
zone. The restriction of protest to the designated zone was content neutral,
and was narrowly tailored to achieve significant governmental interests
concerning sidewalk congestion and convention security. The demonstration zone,
which was equipped with a stage and sound amplification equipment, provided an
adequate alternative channel of expression. Marcavage v. City of New York,
#10-4355, 689 F.3d 98 (2nd Cir. 2012).
A group of men were outside one of their
residences when unmarked police cars pulled up, demanded to know what they were
doing, and ordered them to empty their pockets. When an officer seized keys for
the residence and walked toward it, the resident objected and he was handcuffed
and then forced to the pavement and allegedly hit and kicked. The officers subsequently
left without making any formal arrests. The detained resident sued for false
arrest, excessive force, and the failure of a number of officers to intervene.
A jury verdict in favor of the defendant officers was upheld on appeal. The
appeals court found that any possible flaws in the failure to intervene claim
instructions to the jury were harmless, as was the trial court's ruling
allowing evidence that the detained plaintiff had several prior arrests.
Sanchez v. City of Chicago, #10-3801, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 22555 (7th Cir.).
A man's refusal to sign his $156 bar tab gave a
police officer probable cause to arrest him for theft of restaurant service,
even if the plaintiff was correct that he was not actually required to sign.
Rejecting an excessive force claim, the court found that any aggravation of the
arrestee's old shoulder injury was attributable to the routine police procedure
of handcuffing his hands behind his back, rather than any improper force.
Failure to train and supervise claims were properly rejected in light of the
lack of any underlying violation of the plaintiff's rights. Royster v. Nichols,
#10-3798, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 22355 (8th Cir.).
A private security guard had probable cause to
make a citizen's arrest of a female professional gambler for trespassing even
if she had been sent an invitation to visit the casino. The guard had no way of
knowing if she was the person whose name appeared on the invitation, and he had
a record that she had previously been thrown out under another name. Further,
she was using a player's card with a third name and gave him a fourth name, as
well as carrying no identification. A police officer subsequently had probable
cause to arrest her for obstructing his investigation by refusing to give a name
by which her identity as the person previously ejected could be confirmed or
denied. Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., #09-16233, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 22044
A police officer saw a former firefighter
soliciting money for charity with a firefighter's boot, and arrested him for
theft relating to the misuse of a firefighter's identification card, as he was
no longer a firefighter. The arrestee was given an order of supervision on the
theft charge. When the same officer later saw the arrestee again soliciting
money using a large boot, he arrested him for violating the order of
supervision, although he actually lacked authority, under state law, to arrest
him for violating the terms of his supervision. The appeals court held that the
"Fourth Amendment permits an officer to make an arrest when he or she has
probable cause to believe that an individual has committed or is committing an
offense under state law, regardless of whether state law authorizes an arrest
for that particular offense." The officer, therefore, was entitled to
qualified immunity. The officer could also reasonably believe that asking for
charitable donations using a large rubber boot amounted to the man holding
himself out as a firefighter and improperly soliciting funds on behalf of the
fire department. Tebbens v. Mushol, #11–2400, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18383
(7th Cir.).
A man was arrested under a city ordinance which
criminalized the refusal to leave a place when ordered to do so by a police
officer after three or more persons were engaging in disorderly conduct nearby.
A federal appeals court found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment
on its face because it "substantially inhibits protected speech and is not
amenable to clear and uniform enforcement." Additionally, a section of the
ordinance did not clearly specify what inconveniences, if performed by three or
more persons, could trigger an order to disperse, nor clarify whether dispersal
had to be necessary to end the violation. The ordinance, as it was standardless
as to the nature of the annoyance that triggered the law, could render
individuals subject to arbitrary or discriminatory arrest, making it void for
vagueness in violation of due process. Bell v. Keating, #11-2408, 2012 U.S.
App. Lexis 18952 (7th Cir.).
Police officers lacked probable cause to arrest a
female attorney for obstruction after she informed them that a woman in a
nightclub they were trying to question was her client and "doesn't have
anything to say to you." She did not ignore an officer's instructions, or
act in any aggressive or unduly disruptive manner. Her actions showed only a
purpose to ensure the respect of her client's constitutional rights, which
could not be reasonably construed as hampering or impeding the officers'
investigation. The officers were properly denied qualified immunity on her
false arrest claims. Patrizi v. Huff, #11-4168, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18082,
2012 Fed. App. 284P (6th Cir.).
Two teenage African-American males were arrested
on accusations that they offered to sell Ecstasy to undercover officers driving
by in an unmarked car. After the charges against them were dismissed, they sued
the officers for false arrest. The jury returned a verdict for the officers.
Upholding the verdict, the appeals court rejected the argument that lawyers for
the defendant officers had improperly been allowed to ask questions about drug
activity on the block where the arrests had been made, which insinuated that it
was a high-crime area. The jury's verdict was supported by a reasonable interpretation
of the evidence.Willis v. Lepine, #11–2224, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 15061
(7th Cir.).
A state trooper compelled a female motorist,
stopped for failing to dim her lights, to perform field sobriety tests. He
stated that he did so because her pupils were constricted, and then placed her
under arrest for DUI. Subsequently, a urine test showed that she had not been
drinking, and the charges were dismissed. A federal appeals court stated that
this, combined with a videotape indicating that she had performed the field
sobriety tests with only minor mistakes and no real difficulty, showed that the
officer may have lied about her pupils being constricted. A reasonable jury
could find that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct the field sobriety
tests or place the motorist under arrest. Qualified immunity for the officer
would be inappropriate. Green v. Throckmorton, #10-4487, 681 F.3d 853
(6th Cir. 2012).
Officers who saw a vehicle "filled to the
brim" with piles of clothing and other personal items going around
apparently at random in a high crime neighborhood at 1:30 a.m. had reasonable
suspicion to stop the car. Once stopped, the officers saw a child sitting in a
child seat with diapers and clothes in his lap. They soon learned from a
dispatcher that his wife had reported him as attempting to leave town with the
child. They then had sufficient grounds for a more prolonged detention and
investigation based on these factors and the man's nervousness. They also had a
basis to transport him to the police station based on information about a
domestic incident with his wife. When he failed to be able to produce a
driver's license, there was probable cause for an arrest. He was a Marine back
from duty in Iraq and allegedly mentally disturbed. Subsequently, the officers
acted lawfully in detaining and committing him for psychiatric evaluation. His
rights were not violated. Hoover v. Walsh, #11-1333, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 11929
(6th Cir.).
Security guards at a "turbulent" public
school board meeting allegedly pulled an activist from his seat and dragged him
out of the meeting after he refused to leave when asked. He denied being one of
those disrupting the meeting. Once outside, he was arrested by police based on
the security guards' version of the incident. He was acquitted of disturbing
the peace and resisting arrest. The officers were not liable for false arrest
and were properly granted qualified immunity, as they could rely on the
security guards' statements that the man had disrupted the meeting to arrest
him, and were not required to investigate further. The plaintiff also failed to
present a valid First Amendment claim against the school board or its security
guards, as he had not shown that they threw him out on the basis of his remarks
during the public comments portion of the meeting or his past activism. Green
v. Nocciero, #11–2037, 676 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2012).
A singer and his manager were involved in a fight
with a nightclub owner and security personnel. After they were badly beaten and
deposited outside, police were called, and they were arrested after the club
told officers they had tried to come in without paying an entrance fee, and
that the singer hit the club owner in the face. They sued for false arrest,
claiming that police improperly took the word of the nightclub staff, and
should have reviewed an available videotape, which would have shown that the
club's version of events was inaccurate. The appeals court found that the
statements the club made to police were sufficient to furnish probable cause
for arrest, after which the officers had no obligation to view the video or
seek out other exculpatory evidence. Matthews v. City of East St. Louis,
#11–1168, 675 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2012).
Police knocked on a man's door after a motorist
whose car had been vandalized reporting seeing him first in the parking lot and
then entering the apartment. When he came out of his door, he saw police and
turned around to go back inside. The officers grabbed him, and subjected him to
a leg sweep, and he chipped a tooth during the encounter. There was no probable
cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a detention based solely on the
man's prior presence in the lot where the car had been vandalized. Under these
circumstances, the man had a right to walk away. The court found that the
unlawful arrest claim could continue, and ruled that the trial court should
evaluate the excessive force claim independently, as it was not necessarily
dependent on whether or not any arrest or detention was proper. Romero v.
Story, #11–2139, 672 F.3d 880 (10th Cir. 2012).
A police officer threw a man down on the ground
and arrested him for public intoxication. He did this while responding to a
domestic violence call when he saw the man advancing towards another man who
was allegedly backing up with his hands raised in a nonthreatening position.
The arrestee, who had heart problems, died three years later and his estate
sued he officer. A federal appeals court ruled that the officer's action amount
to an arrest rather than an investigative detention, and that the facts did not
support probable cause for an arrest at that time, since the man was unarmed
and was not within reach of the other man. The officer's use of force may have
been excessive, as the man was not trying to resist arrest or flee and posed
little threat to the safety of others. His right under these circumstances not
to be subject to a forceful takedown was clearly established. The officer was
not entitled to qualified immunity. Morris v. Noe, #11–5066, 672 F.3d
1185 (10th Cir. 2012).
A man was arrested and convicted of sexual
assault and home invasion. Later, he was exonerated and pardoned, and was
awarded $9 million in a wrongful arrest and conviction lawsuit against a police
officer. The city was required to indemnify the officer and the city sought to
obtain payment of the judgment from its liability insurers. The appeals court
noted that even though the city properly notified its insurers of the lawsuit,
they all refused to help the city and officer defend the claim or provide any
indemnification. Additionally, they did not go to court to seek a declaratory
judgment that the claims were not covered under their policies. Only after it
was all over was the current lawsuit filed, seeking a declaratory judgment that
insurers had no obligation to pay. The company providing the insurance policy
as of the date of the arrestee's exoneration will be required to pay the
judgment. The insurer could also be held liable under a state statute for an unreasonable
and vexatious failure to provide a defense. American Safety Casualty Insurance
Co. v. City of Waukegan, #11-2775, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5496
(7th Cir.), rehearing denied by, rehearing, en banc, denied by: American
Safety Casualty Insurance Co. v. City of Waukegan, #11-2775, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 8722 (7th Cir. Ill.).
After officers arrested a man for drinking on a
public way, they found heroin and crack cocaine on him during a search incident
to arrest. Subsequently, after the drinking charge was dropped, a trial judge
ruled that there was no probable cause for the drug arrest. In a false arrest
lawsuit, a verdict for the defendant police officers was returned following
testimony by an assistant prosecutor that it was common for drug charges to be
dismissed if the amount of drugs found was relatively small. A federal appeals
court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial, as that testimony
should not have been allowed without first disclosing that the assistant
prosecutor would be testifying as an expert witness and following the
procedures to present her evidence as such. Tribble v. Evangelides, #10-3262,
670 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2012).
After a purse snatcher shot a woman and her
mother, an officer visited them at the hospital. Another visitor mentions a
neighborhood man who is rumored to be a robber. The woman identified the man
from a photo array, but with some hesitation. The suspect is arrested but
subsequently exonerated of the crime. The identification still was sufficient
to provide probable cause for the arrest. "Identification by a single
eyewitness who lacks an apparent grudge against the accused person supplies
probable cause for arrest." Phillips v. Allen, #10-3559, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 2644 (7th Cir.).
A man active in advocating the right to carry
concealed firearms in public openly carried a holstered handgun into retail
stores on two occasions. Both times, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and
had his gun confiscated. He was not prosecuted and each time his gun was
eventually returned. He claimed that his conduct was not disorderly and was
protected under the federal and state constitutions. The officers were entitled
to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest claims. The officers could not have
anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court would subsequently issue Second
Amendment opinions raising an issue about whether his conduct was lawful and
were not required to balance alleged firearms rights under the Wisconsin state
constitution against the disorderly conduct law. The officers also were not
liable for violating the plaintiff's rights under the federal Privacy Act by
requesting his Social Security number during one of the incidents, since it was
not clearly established that they had to inform him whether the disclosure of
his Social Security number was voluntary or mandatory, and they had not denied
him any "right, benefit, or privilege" based on his refusal to
disclose the number. The court also rejected claims for unlawful seizure of his
property, the handgun. Gonzalez v. Village of West Milwaukee, #10-2356, 2012
U.S. App. Lexis 1965 (7th Cir.).
A deputy sheriff responded to a 911 call
indicating concerns about the welfare of a five-year-old child in the care of a
mother said to be drunk and "acting weird." The mother initially
prevented the deputy from entering the house to check on the child's safety,
attempting to slam the door on him. She later allegedly consents to his entry
and agrees to restrain her growling dogs. He discovers that the child has a fever
which is dangerously high. When he said he might call child welfare authorities
if she did not summon someone better able to take care of the child, she yelled
“I have a gun, I knew you were a cop out there, if I was going to answer the
door and you would have come in, I would have shot ya.” The officer handcuffed
her, considering this a threat. A jury rejected a claim for unlawful
warrantless entry. A federal appeals court upheld this result, and the jury
instructions. The court noted that a "majority of the circuits place the
burden of proof on the plaintiff in a Sec. 1983 action for a warrantless arrest
or search, with some of those circuits imposing the burden of production on the
defendant. A minority of the circuits place the burden of proof on the defendant."
This court agreed with the majority. Der v. Connolly, #11–1048, 666 F.3d 1120
(8th Cir. 2012).
During the 2008 Republican National Convention in
St. Paul, Minnesota, a police commander ordered that no one be permitted to
enter the downtown area during a time when large crowds of protestors and
widespread vandalism had been encountered. A large group of people attempted to
ignore the order, and allegedly responded to the officers blocking their path
by throwing feces and rocks at them. The officers made arrests and used
non-lethal force to subdue the protestors. A federal appeals court ruled that
the arrests were reasonable, including arrests of those who were not themselves
using violence, but were swept up as part of the crowd. The officers also used
reasonable force under the circumstances. "What is reasonable in the
context of a potential large-scale urban riot may be different from what is
reasonable" otherwise. Bernini v. City of St. Paul, #10–3552, 2012 U.S.
App. Lexis 781 (8th Cir.).
A police officer had probable cause to make a
warrantless arrest of a housing developer for violating gambling laws by
running a contest in which participants could, for $20, guess the number of
screws, bolts, and nuts in a chest and have a chance at winning $1 million or a
house. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Even if the contest for
the big prizes didn't meet the technical definition of an illegal lottery under
state law, the awarding of small weekly prizes along the way to awarding the
big prizes may have fit within the prohibitions of the statute. Stepnes v.
Ritschel, #11-1381, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24442 (8th Cir.).
An officer arrived at the home to investigate
complaints that a woman and her parents had taken unauthorized control of an
elderly woman's property and care there. The officer confronts a caretaking
woman outside the home, and asked her about the location of the elderly woman.
When she refused to answer his question, and attempted to flee inside the
house, he placed her under arrest for obstruction, grabbed her arm, and
handcuffed her after a struggle. A federal appeals court rejects First
Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims, ruling that there was no clearly
established law that the woman had a right to refuse to answer the officer's
questions during a Terry investigative stop. The officer was entitled to
qualified immunity, as he could reasonably, under these circumstances, believe
that her refusal to answer his question amounted to obstruction. The court also
rejected a claim that the officer handcuffed the woman too tightly, finding
that any injury was de minimis (minimal). Koch v. City of Del
City, #10-6105, 660 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2011).
After a city's mayor complained to police
that her neighbor, a single mother, was allowing her children to run wild
through flower beds in the neighborhood, an officer allegedly knocked the
mother to the ground and dragged her to his vehicle, placing her inside it. One
of her children opened the door of the police car, and she fled the vehicle.
The officer then placed her under arrest for escape. A federal appeals court
upheld a verdict for the mother in her false arrest lawsuit. Based on the
evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the officer initially arrested her
without probable cause to do so, so that she was justified in fleeing. The
court upheld an award of $57,400 in compensatory damages, but ordered the
reduction of a $1 million punitive damages award to $550,000. Arnold v. Wilder,
#08-6124, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18928 (6th Cir.), rehearing, en banc,
denied, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 21896 (6th Cir.). Editor's note: The appeals court
ruled that the trial judge had erred in reducing the punitive damages award too
far, to $229,600, "mechanically applying a four to one ratio" of
punitive to compensatory damages.
A woman voluntarily signed two lifetime exclusion forms
agreeing not to frequent a casino. These forms were required to be available
under state laws designed to assist problem gamblers. After the casino changed
ownership, she entered the premises and was arrested for criminal trespass. She
sued for false arrest after the charges were dropped. The law enforcement agent
who arrested her was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was arguable
probable cause for the arrest. Borgman v. Kedley, #10-3272, 646 F.3d 518
(8th Cir. 2011).
Officers arrested a man outside a state
fairgrounds for scalping tickets, despite the fact that the state had no
anti-scalping law. Attempting to defend against his false arrest lawsuit, the
defendants tried to justify the arrest on the basis of a little known
"collecting for benefit without authority" law. A federal appeals
court rejected this defense, finding that the arrest could not retroactively be
justified by citing an obscure statute that reasonable arresting officers were
unlikely to have known of. Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, #10-15637, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 17460 (9th Cir.).
A motorist was arrested once for disorderly
conduct when he attempted to jump onto his vehicle as it is being towed away,
and did the same thing months later, and is then arrested for theft of lost
property based on the presence of a police ticket book in his car. He is
arrested a third time approximately a year later for trespass into a parking
lot intended for police parking only, and sues, claiming all three of these
incidents constituted false arrest. A federal appeals court upheld all the
arrests, finding that probable cause existed in each instance. The court
defines disorderly conduct as disturbing the public order or a breach of the
peace. Sroga v. Weiglen, #10-2164, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17144 (7th Cir.).
A man was exercising clearly established First
Amendment rights in standing ten feet away from officers and using a cell
phone's video recorder with an audio microphone to record their activities,
based on his concern that they were using excessive force on an arrestee in a
public place. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on the man's
false arrest lawsuit, despite his argument that the videotaping, by recording
audio without consent of all parties to a conversation, violated a state
wiretapping statute. The wiretapping statute aimed at clandestine recording,
and the officers admitted that the arrestee was open about the fact that he was
recording them. Glik v. Cunniffe, #10-1764, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17841 (1st
Cir.).
There might be some circumstances in which an
arrest that was "unambiguously invalid" solely on the basis of state
law would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. But the plaintiff arrestee
had not shown that the township ordinance under which he was arrested,
prohibiting public intoxication, was unambiguously invalid under New Jersey
law. McMullen v. Maple Shade Twp., #09-4479, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13084 (3rd
Cir.).
An officer's use of pepper spray to effect an
arrest of a man he had observed, weeks earlier, driving with a suspended
driver's license was not unreasonable under clearly established law. The
arrestee squared off facing the officer and stuck his arms out in a
"T," giving the officer probable cause to make an arrest for
resisting, whether or not the man was arrested for the prior traffic violation
under a valid warrant. Brooks v. City of Aurora, #10-3265, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
13662 (7th Cir.).
An officer's use of pepper spray to effect an
arrest of a man he had observed, weeks earlier, driving with a suspended
driver's license was not unreasonable under clearly established law. The
arrestee squared off facing the officer and stuck his arms out in a
"T," giving the officer probable cause to make an arrest for
resisting, whether or not the man was arrested for the prior traffic violation
under a valid warrant. Brooks v. City of Aurora, #10-3265, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
13662 (7th Cir.).
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting an attorney on suspicion of smuggling methamphetamine into a county
jail. Corroborated evidence from a jailhouse informant that the attorney had
accepted jail contraband from one inmate to take to his office for later
delivery to another prisoner gave the officers probable cause both to arrest
the attorney and to obtain a search warrant for his office. Garcia v. County of
Merced, #09-17188, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9184 (9th Cir.).
A jury awarded an African-American arrestee
$80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages on illegal
seizure and equal protection claims. The arrestee had called 911 after a
Caucasian auto body shop owner had allegedly fought with him, and threatened to
get his gun, and an employee of the shop chased him away with a bat. Officers
arriving on the scene allegedly did not listen to the African-American man's
story, but instead placed him under arrest and in handcuffs, on charges of
which he was later acquitted. Overturning the trial court's rejection of the
jury's verdict, the federal appeals court ruled that there was sufficient
evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was
unlawfully seized and detained, and had been subjected to discriminatory
treatment. Pitts v. Delaware, #10-3388, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12215 (3rd Cir.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a man
based on a sworn statement by his alleged victim, a 12-year-old mentally
disabled student. While the child's age and mental capacity did bear upon the
trustworthiness of his statements, the statement was also reinforced by the
statements of four adults who discussed the incident with him and believed that
an offense had occurred: his grandmother, the school psychologist, the Dean of
Students, and the arresting officer. Kilburn v. Village of Saranac Lake,
#10-1559, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4698 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
After a deputy stopped her husband's car, in
which she was a passenger, and ticketed him for failing to dim its high beam
lights, a woman called 911 to express her fears of the deputy, who she
described as "shaking, agitated, and nervous," and requested that
other officers meet the couple at a local gas station, because the deputy had
activated his lights and siren and was following them. She had criticized him
during the stop and been told to "shut up." At the gas station, the
deputy instructed another officer to arrest the woman for obstructing an
officer without violence. The other officer did so, grabbing her arm as she
climbed out of the vehicle, dragging her to his patrol car, pushing her against
the hood to handcuff her, and then shoving her inside. A federal appeals court
found that the deputy did not have probable cause to order the woman's arrest
under these circumstances. Her criticisms of the deputy during and after the
traffic stop, even if distracting did not incite others against, interfere
with, or impede the deputy from citing her husband for his traffic infraction.
DeRosa v. Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, #10-14046, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
4057 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A man visiting a shopping center observed Vice
President Dick Cheney exit from a grocery store, and stated into his cell
phone, to a person he was talking to, "I'm going to ask him how many kids
he's killed today." A Secret Service agent, hearing this, placed the man
under surveillance. The man later talked to the Vice President, telling him
that his policies in Iraq "are disgusting," to which Cheney replied
"Thank you." Departing, the man touched Cheney's right shoulder with
his open hand. When he later again returned to the area where the Vice
President was speaking with crowd members, a Secret Service agent asked him
whether he had assaulted or touched the Vice President, and placed him under
arrest when he said he had not. The agent had probable cause to arrest the man
for making a false statement that he had not touched the Vice President. The
arrestee did, however, establish a possible claim for First Amendment
retaliation by several of the agents, who may have acted against him on the
basis of his opinion about the Iraq war. Further proceedings were ordered on
that claim. Howards v. McLaughlin, #09-1201, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2011).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a high
school student for fighting with another boy, and were entitled to qualified
immunity, based on a school administrator's statement about witnessing part of
the fight, and injuries suffered by the other boy. C.H. v. Rankin County Sch.
Dist., #10-60380, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4494 (5th Cir.).
While a sheriff's deputy did have probable cause
to arrest a city employee, there was a factual issue as to whether the use of
pepper spray against the arrestee was excessive. The arrestee had allegedly
elbowed the deputy while going through an employee entrance security checkpoint
at a city building, and responded with a profane statement when ordered to
stop. While there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for failing to
obey a lawful order, his version of the incident, in which he denied making
physical contact with the deputy or making the profane statement, if true,
would render the deputy's use of pepper spray and action in taking him to the
ground an excessive use of force. Howard v. Wayne County Sheriff's Office,
#09-2171, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5270 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a man for
forgery for allegedly trying to cash a fake money order, even though the money
order ultimately proved to be genuine, when he was told by a local post office
that the money order was fake. The officer, under these circumstances, was not
required to attempt to verify with the out-of-town post office that issued the
money order that it was genuine rather than fake. The officer was also not
liable for requiring the arrestee, for a time, to stand outside in the cold in
handcuffs that allegedly were too tight. Sow v. Fortville Police Department,
#10-2188, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2804 (7th Cir.).
An officer who arrested a man for disorderly
conduct after he called the officer an "SOB" and a "flat
slob" was not entitled to qualified immunity from a federal civil rights
claim. The arrestee's voice may not have been loud enough to be unreasonable,
and the officer's decision to arrest him may have been motivated by retaliation
against the arrestee for exercising his First Amendment rights. Kennedy v. City
of Villa Hills, #09-6442, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5985 (6th Cir.).
A man convicted of both federal and state charges
was believed to be on probation when his probation officer authorized his
warrantless arrest for probation violation and a warrantless search for
suspected drug possession. The probation period had actually already ended
because his sentence had been reduced unbeknownst to the probation department.
He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against various state and county
officers, asserting claims arising out of the arrest and search. Upholding
qualified immunity for the individual defendants, a federal appeals court found
that they could reasonably believe that there were at least arguably sufficient
grounds for the arrest and search. McInnis v. State of Maine, #10-1437 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 4384 (1st Cir.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a man at
a university football game after he failed to comply with several verbal
warnings to leave the student disability accessible section in the stadium,
which he did not have a ticket for. The appeals court noted that the plaintiff,
although an attorney, "remarkably" cited no authority in support of
his false arrest claim. His conduct fit the description of criminal trespass
under Louisiana state law. The officer's actions were objectively reasonable,
the court ruled. Hodge v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office, #10-30018,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18703 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A man prosecuted and convicted of charges of
sexual misconduct appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit asserting various
claims arising out of his arrest, prosecution, and conviction. Noting that he
had pled guilty to the charges in his state criminal case, a federal court
ruled that his lawsuit was barred by the defense of collateral estoppel since
he neither appealed his conviction nor sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The
plaintiff's argument that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the issue of his guilt because he had incompetent counsel was rejected, with
the appeals court noting that he himself had practiced law at a large firm
prior to his disbarment, and stated that his plea was being entered voluntarily
and knowingly, and that he had committed the offenses for which he was pleading
guilty. Additionally, some claims against the prosecutor were barred by
absolute prosecutorial immunity. Colliton v. Donnelly, #09-4186, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 22727 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
An officer claimed that he arrested a man for
refusing to accept service of a temporary restraining order that his wife had
obtained against him, and used appropriate force when the man violently
resisted arrest. The plaintiff, however, claimed that the arrest had been in
response to his attempt to call 911 to complain about the officer, and that the
officer assaulted him. Refusing to overturn the trial court's denial of
qualified immunity to the officer, a federal appeals court noted that the
officer's arguments that he was entitled to qualified immunity were based on
entirely different facts than those asserted by the plaintiff. Zahn v. City of
Trenton, #07-4085, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 16796 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An African-American electric meter reader alleged
that she was falsely arrested for supposedly taking pictures of houses in an
almost entirely white neighborhood while working. She was charged with
obstructing an officer, and had actually not been taking pictures, but merely
using binoculars to see if house gates were open so she could read meters, or
whether dogs were in a yard, etc. The officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity, as they could not identify any single circumstance about her actions
that could have supported a reasonable belief that she was engaged in a
criminal activity under any federal or state law. Jones v. Clark, #09-3574,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 707 (7th Cir.).
A patient advocate employed in a hospital
emergency room asked a police officer to get off his cell phone, believing that
such phone use was prohibited in the area where the officer was. The officer
refused, and during the ensuing argument, the officer allegedly poked and
grabbed the hospital employee, twisted his arm while attempting to handcuff
him, and arrested him for "terroristic threats," obstruction of
administration of the law, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. In a false
arrest lawsuit, a jury returned a verdict for the officer. A federal appeals
court rejected the plaintiff's argument that evidence of the officer's prior
use of excessive force was improperly excluded, noting that excessive force
claims asserted by the plaintiff were not even before the jury at trial, having
been previously rejected by the trial court. Fanor v. Alvarado, #08-2907, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 19094 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A Florida man claimed that officers who came to
his house in response to a phone call about a dispute between two women entered
the residence without performing any investigation, immediately handcuffing
him, pushing him to the ground, dragging him outside, and arresting him. The
appeals court overturned the dismissal of a false arrest claim, finding that
the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the officers arrested him without
probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime. Heflin v. Miami-Dade
County, #10-10407, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17287 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An officer observed a motorist driving with
tinted windows and an untinted but dirty plastic cover over her license plate.
He pulled next to her to read the plate number, and found that it was not
listed as stolen. He then activated his emergency lights, pulling behind her.
She did not pull over, and he activated his siren. A pursuit ensued, and only ended
after another officer pulled his car in front of the motorist. A federal
appeals court ruled that the officers had at least arguable probable cause to
arrest the motorist for obscuring her license plate and trying to elude an
officer. Perry v. Greene County, Georgia, #10-10143, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17099
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
After a jury acquitted a woman of having
assaulted her elderly mother at a nursing home, she sued the arresting officer
and a number of other defendants for false arrest. Summary judgment for the
defendants was upheld, as there was probable cause for the arrest, based on a
nurse's report of seeing the woman shove her mother into her wheelchair, and
the discovery of bruises on the mother's knee and forearms. Veatch v. Bartels
Lutheran Home, #09-3678, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26270 (8th Cir.).
An officer who stopped a female motorist for
operating a vehicle at night without headlights discovered a package containing
controlled substances in the car and detained her at a police station, where
she was charged with a drug offense. Rejecting her false arrest claim, a
federal appeals court noted that where a police officer “has probable cause to
believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in
his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the
offender.” Because the officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for
the traffic offense, which she conceded she committed, her arrest, even though
it was on a different charge, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Ray v. City
of Chicago, #09-3719, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 136 (7th Cir.).
A Florida officer wrote a female motorist a
speeding ticket, and asked her to sign it. She initially refused to do so, but
agreed after he informed her that, under state law, she could be arrested for
the refusal. After she signed it, she stated, "I will see you in
court." He then placed her under arrest, handcuffed her, and pulled her
out of her car. She was charged with refusal to sign and accept a traffic
citation and resisting an officer without violence. Rejecting her false arrest
claim, a federal appeals court found that the offense of refusing to sign the
ticket was complete upon her initial refusal, as the law does not require
knowledge of the requirement for a violation, and her subsequent agreement to
sign, after being informed of the law, did not remove the probable cause based
on her initial refusal. The officer's subjective motivation for making the
arrest was irrelevant. Snover v. City of Starke, #09-16281, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 20238 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An officer allegedly received a statement from a
15-year-old girl that she was in a sexual relationship with and had become
pregnant by a 41-year-old man who gave her drugs and alcohol. She also said
that he threatened to kill her family if she revealed this. The officer went to
the man's apartment and made a warrantless arrest, with another officer serving
as his backup. Upholding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
for the backup officer on a false arrest claim, a federal appeals court ruled
that he did not know that the arresting officer had no warrant to make the
arrest, that the suspect had asked whether there was a warrant before the
arresting officer entered the apartment, or that there was no permission to
enter. He had not been involved in the investigation, and was too far back to
hear the conversation, only entering the apartment after seeing the arresting
officer do so, and out of concern for that officer's safety. Shepard v.
Hallandale Beach Police Dept., #09-14265, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20240 (Unpub.
11th Cir.).
A man sitting in his parked car in a public park
in the morning, with a bowl of water and a towel or rag in the car, preparing
to perform his morning ritual of reading the Bible there, was accused, by a
police officer, of having slept in the park overnight. The officer had seen his
car there the evening before, and now told him to leave. When he refused, he
was arrested for obstruction of an officer. He was also allegedly dragged out
of his car, pushed against the police car, and had his face pushed into the
hood. The officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest, a federal
appeals court held, based on his observations. Staying in the park overnight
when it was closed would have violated local law, and the officer did not know
that the man allegedly had a personal ritual of returning to the park to read
the Bible or placing a wet cloth on his forehead preparatory to that reading.
The force used in making the arrest was also found to be minimal and not
excessive. Howell v. City of Lithonia, #09-11599, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20190
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Deputies did not use excessive force in allegedly
placing handcuffs too tightly on a burglary arrestee. It was objectively
reasonable for them to finish their initial investigation and clear the area
before addressing the arrestee's complaints about his handcuffs being too
tight. They subsequently loosened them. The deputies also had probable cause to
arrest him for burglary, having seen him carrying things out of a house they
believed no one was permitted to enter, which he admitted entering through a
window, defeating his false arrest claim. The arrestee's statement that he was
the attorney for the co-administrator of the estate connected with the
premises, even if true, did not end probable cause to detain him for
investigation of a burglary. Beltran v. County of Los Angeles, #08-56007, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 22013 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
After a father was acquitted by a jury of charges
that he had sexually abused his minor daughter, he filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and various other claims.
Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court rejected
the argument that the investigation conducted "shocked the
conscience." While the investigation "certainly may have benefited
from additional interviews and evidence collection," including information
about a past accusation against the father by his other daughter that was found
to be "unfounded," etc., there was still sufficient evidence of
possible abuse to justify the arrest and prosecution. Both were supported by
probable cause based on the daughter's accusations, and the opinions of a doctor's
forensic interview of her. Livingston v. Allegheny County, #10-1596, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 23339 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A juvenile's agreement to resolve charges of
obstructing a police investigation by accepting informal probation was not a
"favorable termination" of her criminal case, so that her false
arrest claim was barred. The appeals court also rejected her excessive force
claim against one officer, as he had not participated in her arrest. Lujano v.
County of Santa Barbara, #B218145, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 2041 (Cal App.).
A motorist claimed that an officer framed him for
DUI by falsifying the results of his field sobriety tests as part of a scheme
to make phony DUI arrests to justify overtime. Rejecting his false arrest
claim, the federal appeals court ruled that because there was probable cause to
arrest the motorist for driving a prohibited vehicle, his false arrest claim
was barred. This was true even though the motorist was not ultimately charged
with that offense. Jackson v. Parker, #09-3873, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24683 (7th
Cir.).
In an arrestee's lawsuit claiming that he had been
arrested without probable cause for impersonating a police officer, and for
false imprisonment and terroristic threatening of suspected drug offenders, the
appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to arresting officers by
the trial court, which described in detail the material disputed facts which
could permit a reasonable jury to find that probable cause was lacking for each
of the three charges. Aaron v. Shelley, #09-3554, 624 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2010).
Off duty police officers working security at a
high school football game held on private property owned by a church had
probable cause to arrest a man attending the game who failed to move on when
instructed to do so after he could not find a place to sit, and who stood and
glared at an officer and refused to leave the premises when told to do so.
Carthon v. Prator, #09-31100, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22896 (Unpub.5th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man for
obstruction when he acted with resistance to their attempts to arrest him under
a warrant for driving under a cancelled license. Jacobson v. Mott, #09-2484,
623 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2010).
When an officer responded to a burglar alarm at a
house, he observed that a basement window appeared to have been pried open. The
front door was open, and several items were on the porch. The officer observed
a man inside the house going through some papers. He was the son of the woman
who owned the house, was there alone, and admitted that he did not know how to
turn off the alarm. He became "confrontational" when the officer
asked him to exit the premises, he tried to head butt the officer, and he was
placed under arrest for disorderly conduct, a charge he pled no contest to. His
mother subsequently indicated that he had her permission to remove items from
the house. The next day, he returned to the police station to file a complaint
about his arrest. The sergeant taking his statement ran his driver's license
and learned that it had been suspended, and wrote him a citation for driving
with a suspended license, as he had driven to the station. He sued, asserting
claims for false arrest, excessive force, and illegal search in running his driver's
license. A federal appeals court found that the officer had probable cause to
arrest the plaintiff at his mother's house and reason to believe that he was
committing a crime being in the house, which was not his. There was no evidence
that he suffered any injury from any force the arresting officer used, and he
had attempted to head butt the officer. A claim of malicious prosecution was
meritless in light of his plea of no contest to the disorderly conduct charge.
Running of his license after he furnished it as identification did not
constitute an unlawful search. Crock v. Pennsylvania, #10-2001, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 21625 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A Florida officer believed that he saw cannabis
in a man's mouth, and that the suspect was resisting him by chewing and
swallowing what he believed was evidence of a crime. The officer therefore
arrested him for violation of a state statute prohibiting obstruction or
resistance of an officer performing his legal duty. Under the circumstances,
the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest and was therefore
entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and malicious prosecution
claims. The appeals court also held that the defendant officers were entitled
to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim, as one officer's efforts to
stop the arrestee from swallowing the supposed cannabis, and the other
officer's use of a Taser against the arrestee did not violate the plaintiff's
clearly established rights. The officers believed the suspect was attempting to
destroy evidence, and that he was resisting orders and attempting to flee or
resist arrest by jumping in his car. It would "not be clear to every
reasonable officer that the force used was excessive under the
circumstances." German v. Sosa, #10-10443, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21026
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
When it was undisputed that a pedestrian was
neither on the sidewalk nor in a crosswalk when he entered a "parking
turnout" on a street, officers had at least a reasonable belief that they
had probable cause to arrest him for jaywalking, so that they were entitled to
qualified immunity on his false arrest claim. An excessive force claim lacked
merit when all that happened was that an officer had allegedly swung his baton
at the arrestee without actually touching him. Burdett v. Reynoso, #08-15159,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21018 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man based
on the "indicia of controlled substance use" that he exhibited, and
were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on his false arrest and false
imprisonment claims. The arrestee also asserted a claim that the defendants had
failed to produce and disclose exculpatory evidence in his case. But this claim
was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), as success on
this claim would imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been
overturned on appeal or otherwise set aside. The plaintiff also failed to
provide support for his claims that the officers acted with racial animus in
arresting him, that they tampered with their recordings of his arrest, or that
they used excessive force against him. Because the arrest was supported by
probable cause, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity even if the
arrestee could make out a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, because
"the right of an individual to be free of police action motivated by
retaliatory animus" despite the existence of probable cause was not
clearly established as of 2006, the date of the incident. Ra El v. Crain, #08-56122,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20536 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court found that an officer who
arrested a woman for assaulting her husband was entitled to qualified immunity
on her false arrest claim. At the time of the arrest, the woman admitted to
clawing her husband's neck, and he had visible marks on his neck. Additionally,
he had called 911 to report the incident, and the wife lacked any similar
injuries. The court rejected the argument that a reasonable officer would have
believed that probable cause was dissipated simply because the wife wanted him
to talk to a third party on the telephone, who had not been present during the
incident. The officer, once probable cause to arrest was established, had no
obligation to investigate whether some affirmative defense to the assault
charge existed. Steinmetz v. City of Camas, #09-35657, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
16061 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A police chief was not entitled to summary
judgment in a false arrest lawsuit filed by a man taken into custody for
allegedly interfering with official police conduct. The record in the case
showed that the arrestee cursed at and "distracted" the police chief,
whose car was blocking access to his business. This conduct did indicate that
the arrestee intended to prevent the chief from completing the traffic stop he
was engaged in. Additionally, purely expressive conduct, even if distracting,
is protected under the First Amendment. There was also sufficient evidence to
support claims against the chief for excessive use of force. Municipal
liability claims were rejected, however, as the chief was not a final
policymaker for the city. Copeland v. Locke, #09-2485, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
15762 (8th Cir.).
An off-duty officer investigating a dog in
distress in a hot, parked vehicle observed the driver, a woman emerging from a
nearby store, and he questioned her. She got into the driver's side of the car
and the officer displayed his badge, at which point she attempted to drive
away. The officer pulled her from the car and restrained her following a
struggle. A second officer summoned to the scene observed that the off-duty
officer had the woman restrained against her vehicle in an arm lock. The
off-duty officer told the arriving officer that the woman was under arrest. The
second officer, at the off-duty officer's request drove the woman, in
handcuffs, to the police station for processing. Charges of animal cruelty,
aggravated assault, and obstruction were later dismissed. The arrestee sued
both officers for false arrest and other claims. The trial court found that
factual disputes on the conduct of the arrestee and the arresting off-duty
officer precluded summary judgment on most claims arising from the arrest. An
appeal focused on the issue of whether the second, arriving officer was
entitled to qualified immunity. The trial court ruled that the facts were not
sufficient to find that this officer had probable cause to arrest the woman,
which would entitle him to qualified immunity. There were factual disputes as
to what the off-duty officer told him, the existence of an "assist
officer" call bringing him to the scene was in dispute, and the trial
court found that the second officer could not have directly observed conduct
that would have given him probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, since the
events causing the arrest had already occurred by the time he arrived. The
appeals court stated in order for the second officer to rely on the first
officer's statements for the purposes of an arrest, they must be
"clear" and sufficiently specific to "confirm the existence of
probable cause." Since the trial court found that undisputed facts in the
record did not establish this, the second officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity. Ciardiello v. Sexton, #08-4610, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17106 (Unpub.
3rd Cir. 2010).
A 19-year-old cashier at a convenience store was
sexually assaulted and robbed at gunpoint by a serial sex offender, and
reported the crime to police within minutes, subjecting herself to a rape kit
examination, and gave detailed and consistent statements to police and hospital
personnel. Despite this, a detective assigned to the case believed that she had
fabricated the attack to cover up her own theft of cash from the store's cash
register. He later filed a criminal complaint against her, charging her with
falsely reporting a crime, theft, and receipt of stolen property, resulting in
her spending five days in jail. Charges against her were dropped when the
serial rapist was caught and confessed to having assaulted her. She sued the
detective and another officer for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights and
false arrest. Overturning summary judgment for the defendant detective, a
federal appeals court held that no reasonably competent officer could have
believed under the circumstances that there was probable cause for the
plaintiff's arrest, if the plaintiff's version of the facts were believed.
Reedy v. Evanson, #09-2210, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15974 (3rd Cir.).
A federal court rejected false arrest claims
asserted by a woman arrested by two officers following an incident at a store
involving counterfeit money orders. The trial court, in addition to entering
summary judgment for the defendants, awarded the officers attorneys' fees,
believing that the arrestee's claims against them were groundless and
unreasonable. The plaintiff had received four $500 money orders in the mail
from someone she did not know, and suspected that they were fraudulent. She
went to a store to cash a legitimate $100 money order she had also received,
and decided to check into the validity of the four suspicious money orders. She
claimed that she did not intend to try to cash them, but only to determine if
they were real. These four money orders were recognized by a store employee as
likely to be fraudulent, and he summoned store security, which confiscated
them. The officers later arrested her for trying to cash them. A federal
appeals court ruled that the officers, under these circumstances, had probable
cause to arrest the plaintiff. The court also upheld the award of attorneys'
fees, as the plaintiff's continuation of her lawsuit against the officers after
she completed discovery was "unquestionably" groundless and
unreasonable. Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., #09-2696, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
18239 (8th Cir.).
A police officer clearly had arguable probable
cause, based on the facts, to arrest a man he encountered for a violation of
the town's public consumption of alcohol ordinance. The U.S. Supreme Court has
held that "[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an
individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he
may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender." Atwater
v. City of Lago Vista, #99-1408, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). The trial court therefore
erred in not granting the officer summary judgment on the false arrest claim.
Disputed facts about the force used during the arrest, however, required the
denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment on an excessive force
claim. Ruiz v. Town of Indian Shores, #09-15316, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15891
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
The City of Denver reached a $175,000 settlement
in a wrongful arrest lawsuit brought in federal court by a woman mistakenly
arrested for purported violation of a protective order that was supposed to
protect her against her estranged boyfriend. The order barred him from coming
within 100 yards of her, but was not reciprocal. She was arrested for violating
the order when she complained to police that her boyfriend used his truck to
stop her from exiting the parking lot at a police station, resulting in her
spending the night in custody. The settlement agreement also provides for
additional training for officers on how to enforce protective orders. Shroff v.
Spellman, #1:-7-cv-01466, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Colo. June 29, 2010).
Prior to the settlement agreement, a federal appeals court rejected
an argument from the arresting officer that he was entitled to qualified
immunity and had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also claimed that her right to privacy was violated. She had to pump breast
milk while in custody because she was breast feeding and the arresting officer
allegedly required her to do so in a manner that exposed her breasts to a female
police cadet. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in
finding that this constituted an illegal strip search under the circumstances.
Shroff v. Spellman, #09-1084, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12066 (10th Cir).
A settlement agreement was reached between the
City of Baltimore, Maryland and the plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging a pattern
of improper and unlawful arrests by the city's police department. Plaintiffs
included thirteen individual arrestees and the NAACP. The settlement includes the
payment of $870,000 in damages and attorneys' fees, the issuance of a
departmental directive clearly defining the authority of officers in making
arrests for low-level, non-violent "quality of life" offenses (such
as disorderly conduct, failure to obey, or loitering), additional training for
officers on what conduct does and does not constitute such offenses, additional
training on First Amendment rights and how to deal with persons demonstrating
and protesting, data collection and monitoring of compliance with the
settlement and reporting that will bring officers to supervisory attention if
their arrest or complaint history is out of the norm, and the appointment of an
independent monitor of the department's compliance. Maryland State Conference
of NAACP Branches v. Baltimore City Police Dept., #06-1863, U.S. Dist. Ct, (D.
Md., June 23, 2010).
A high school teacher was investigated by her
school, school district officials, and a police chief, as well as child welfare
authorities, based on suspicions that she was engaging in sexual relations with
a 15-year-old male student. She was indicted and arrested, but was acquitted at
trial, and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. The appeals court found that
the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity on claims that their
investigation was biased and deprived the teacher of due process because they
coerced the male student into admitting the affair, and because one of the
leading figures in the investigation had himself previously been accused, by
the teacher, of sexually harassing a female student. There was no prior caselaw
that reporting the teacher's alleged misconduct to other agencies that would
conduct their own investigations (police and child welfare) would violate the
teacher's rights. The police chief was entitled to qualified immunity, as there
were sufficient indications of probable cause to arrest the teacher, including
a statement from the student, statements from the student's mother, and
statements from a witness who had seen the teacher and boy kiss, and heard the
boy admit to the affair. Phone records also revealed over 500 phone calls
between the student and teacher, including 20 calls lasting a total of three
hours on Valentine's Day. Purvis v. Oest, #09-1098, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15972
(7th Cir.).
A woman claimed that her arrest and prosecution
for obstructing police officers who were arresting her son violated her First
Amendment rights. The trial court found that the ordinance, which criminalized
obstructing or resisting officers, was facially overbroad, and enjoined its
enforcement. Reversing, a federal appeals court found that the ordinance's use
of the words "obstruct" and "resist" only covered physical
acts or "fighting words," and did not give officers unfettered discretion
to arrest persons merely for engaging in speech that was critical or annoyed
them. McDermott v. Royal, #09-3167, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15766 (8th Cir.).
The leader of an anti-abortion demonstration in
front of the Liberty Bell Center in Independence National Historical Park was
arrested by a park ranger when he refused orders to move to a nearby location
away from the sidewalk. While there is a legitimate interest in maintaining
public order, these actions violated the First Amendment, so the conviction was
overturned. The sidewalk was a traditional public forum, and the ranger's
actions were based on the content of the protestor's speech. U.S.A. v.
Marcavage, #09-3573, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12271 (3rd Cir.).
Two women protested against the war in Iraq at a
2004 Republican campaign rally for President Bush. They were arrested for
trespass and subjected to strip and body cavity searches at the county jail.
They sued federal, state, and county law enforcement officers, claiming
violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. A jury awarded them
$750,000 on the unreasonable search claims, but the trial judge found that
excessive, and a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $55,804 in damages. On
appeal, the court found that, under the totality of the circumstances, there
had been probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiffs for resisting a
federal agent providing protection for the President. The appeals court also
agreed that the amount awarded by the first jury on the search claim had been
excessive, but found that the trial court had erroneously ordered the
plaintiffs to either accept a 90% reduction to $75,000 or undergo a new trial
on damages. The trial court used prior cases, including a 1978 strip search
award for $75,000 for comparison, but made no adjustment for inflation. After a
new reduced amount is calculated, making such an adjustment for inflation, the
plaintiffs may either accept that amount or undergo a third trial on damages.
They were entitled to attorneys' fees for a percentage of the time spent on the
first trial and for all of the work done on the second trial. McCabe v. Parker,
#09-1185, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13327 (8th Cir.).
A man arrested for attempting to cash a
fraudulent check had the charges against him dropped and filed a lawsuit for
false arrest. While he did not dispute that his actions had provided the
officers with reason to believe that he had satisfied the conduct ("actus
reus") element of the charged crime of fraud, he argued that the officers
still lacked probable cause for the arrest because there was no reason to
believe that he had the required mental state to commit the crime. The appeals
court rejected this argument, and held that the facts and circumstances known
to the officers at the time of the arrest were sufficient to create a
reasonable belief that he intended to defraud the bank. Painter v. City of
Albuquerque, #09-2135, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12878 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A motorist's actions in playing loud music,
stopping her car, and rolling her window down could have indicated to an
objectively reasonable officer that she was making unreasonable noise with
intent to create a public annoyance. Defendants involved in her arrest were
therefore entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Other defendants were properly granted qualified immunity, as they did not
participate in a second arrest of a man who videotaped the incident and were
not the arresting officers' supervisors. Further proceedings were ordered,
however, on excessive force claims arising from the arrest of the motorist.
Brown v. City of Huntsville, #09-1296, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11480 (11th Cir.).
A jury rejected an arrestee's claims that
officers had wrongfully arrested him following an incident in which he shot his
neighbor's dog in the head. He claimed that the dog had bit him, and he was
acquitted of all criminal charges. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial
court in the false arrest lawsuit had not acted erroneously in admitting into
evidence an authenticated photograph of the dog, as both parties had made the
dog's appearance relevant to the issues in the case. The plaintiff had stated
that the dog was vicious, bloodthirsty, malnourished, unkempt, and looked like
a wolf or coyote. The image in the photo was inconsistent with this
description. Testimony about the dog's usual behavior and appearance was
properly admitted for the same reasons. Grossmith v. Noonan, #09-1900, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 11727 (1st Cir.)...
A federal appeals court ruled that a police
officer was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for arresting the
plaintiff for violation of a state statute that prohibited loitering in a
public place for the purpose of soliciting another person to engage in deviate
sexual behavior. This statute had never been repealed, was still on the books,
and had even recently been revised, but had been declared unconstitutional by
the highest court in New York eighteen years before. The federal appeals court
found that it was unreasonable under these circumstances to expect the officer
to know that the statute no longer provided probable cause for an arrest. Amore
v. Novarro, #08-3150, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12736 (2nd Cir.).
A state trooper stopped a car for a burned out
license plate light. He decided to give the motorist a verbal warning and show
him the problem. As the driver exited the vehicle and started to walk towards
the car's rear, the trooper observed a bulge in his pocket, which he
determined, during further investigation, to be cocaine. Charges were later
dismissed when the drugs were suppressed as evidence, and the motorist sued the
state for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
Rejecting these claim, the New York Court of Claims found that the trooper
lawfully stopped the vehicle for a violation, did not prolong the detention
excessively, and made his observations that led to the discovery of the drugs
during a lawful detention. Anderson v. The State of New York, #113255, 2010
N.Y. Misc. Lexis 963 (Ct. of Claims).
Persons arrested and prosecuted for attempting to
enter a federal building with objects resembling police badges filed a lawsuit
challenging their arrests and prosecutions under a city ordinance and state
statute prohibiting the unauthorized possession of items that resembled symbols
of police authority, such as uniforms and badges. A federal appeals court found
that any First Amendment claims had been waived because they were not
previously raised, and that, in addition, the facts alleged did not support any
such claims. The arrests and prosecutions were supported by probable cause. In
addition, the court rejected arguments that the city ordinance at issue was
unconstitutionally vague. Dickerson v. Napolitano, #09-2167, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
9887 (2nd Cir.).
A traveler was arrested at a New Jersey airport
by Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for violating New Jersey
gun laws by possessing a handgun and ammunition. The traveler, who had flown to
New Jersey from Utah, had a handgun and ammunition in separate locked cases in
his checked luggage. Because of a delay, he had to stay overnight in a hotel in
New Jersey, and he retrieved his checked luggage before doing so. The next day,
when he attempted to fly on to his destination in Pennsylvania, the gun and
ammunition were detected during x-raying and he was arrested. He had declared
the presence of the gun and ammunition when checking his bags in Utah, where he
was licensed for the weapon. He sued for false arrest, claiming that the arrest
was unlawful under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926A, which allows a licensed gun owner to
travel from one state through a second, en route to a third, provided that he
is licensed to carry the weapon in the first and third state and that it is not
readily accessible to him during transport, such as checked in luggage, or
locked in a compartment in a vehicle. Upholding summary judgment for the
defendants, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not
meet the requirements of the federal statute, since he retrieved his luggage
containing the gun and ammunition before going to his New Jersey hotel, and had
with him the keys to the locked containers, making the gun and ammunition
readily accessible to him, whether or not he actually accessed them. Revell v.
Erickson, #09-2029, 598 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Police officers arrested a man for trespassing
within the gated area of a housing cooperative, and took him to a local police
station where they searched him for contraband, finding nothing, and then
released him after giving him a trespassing citation. He was never prosecuted.
The arrestee sued for false arrest and unreasonable search and seizure. While
finding that probable cause existed for the trespassing arrest, a federal appeals
court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that he underwent an unreasonable strip
search at the station (following a pat-down search at the scene of the arrest),
making him remove his shoes and socks, pull his pants down to his ankles, and
bend over and cough, as well as looking inside his boxer shorts. An arrestee
charged with minor offenses, the court stated, may be strip searched only if
there is reasonable suspicion that he is carrying or concealing contraband or a
weapon, unless the arrestee is being introduced into a general jail population,
which was not the case here. The officers did not testify that they had
reasonable suspicion that the arrestee had contraband or a weapon, although
they also disputed whether they had actually carried out a strip search. In
light of this, qualified immunity was not available as a defense nor was
summary judgment on the unreasonable search claim otherwise available. Edgerly
v. San Francisco, #05-15080, 599 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2010).
A small group of people gathered in downtown
Minneapolis while the city was hosting a weeklong summer festival. They planned
to protest the "mindless nature" of "consumer culture" by
walking through the downtown area dressed as "zombies," wearing white
powder and fake blood on their faces and ark makeup around their eyes. They
danced down the street, playing music on their IPods, and broadcast
announcements such as "brain cleanup in Aisle 5" by speaking into a
wireless phone handset. Police received an anonymous 911 call complaining about
the group and the noise they were making. Officers asked them to turn down
their music and keep their distance from bystanders. Later, when the group
stopped dancing and gathered on a sidewalk, officers asked them for
identification, and when most of them could not produce any, told them they
were being taken to the police station to be identified and possibly booked for
disorderly conduct. Once there, they were placed in a holding cell, questioned,
and searched. They were also booked on charges of displaying simulated weapons
of mass destruction, a felony offense punishable by ten years imprisonment,
even though it was determined that the bags they were carrying, containing
various electronic equipment, did not contain explosives. They were kept in
custody for two nights and released. A federal appeals court found that the
officers were not entitled to summary judgment on some of the plaintiffs'
claims because they did not have probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for
disorderly conduct. It was also clearly established the court stated, that a
reasonable officer would have known that there was no probable cause to arrest
the plaintiffs for engaging in protected expressive conduct. Baribeau v.
Minneapolis, #08-3165, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
A homeless man claimed that he was unlawfully
detained and arrested by two Massachusetts state troopers and a state police
officer for trespassing in a public park after it closed at night. Upholding
summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court found that it was
reasonable for them to suspect, at 10:30 p.m., that the plaintiff was in a
restricted area and therefore trespassing, based on signs designating the
closing time of the park. Additionally, the area was known by the defendants to
be one in which crimes had been reported, and the plaintiff's attempts to avoid
contact with the officers, combined with his inability or unwillingness to
provide his Social Security number, gave the officers reasonable grounds to
investigate his past criminal history. This reasonable suspicion justified his
one-hour detention for a warrant check, and the Florida state warrant found was
sufficient to give them probable cause for his arrest. Foley v. Kiely,
#09-1250, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 7752 (1st Cir.).
After a couple's three-year-old daughter was
kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered, the father was allegedly framed by
police detectives for the crime, and coerced until he agreed to a
"confession" that the detectives had concocted, arresting him and
causing him to be jailed and face a possible death penalty on a charge of first
degree murder. Charges against him were eventually dropped eight months later
on the basis of DNA testing that excluded him as the source of the DNA found on
his daughter's body. No one else has been accused of the crime. A jury returned
awards for the father and his wife on claims of violation of due process, false
arrest, malicious prosecution, emotional distress, and punitive damages, as
well as the wife's loss of consortium. A total of $9.3 million was awarded to
the father and $6.2 million to his wife. A federal appeals court, while
generally upholding the awards to the plaintiffs, ordered either a reduction of
damages to a total of $8,166,000 or to $8 million and a new trial on the false
arrest and emotional distress claims, at the election of the plaintiffs. Fox v.
Hayes, #08-3736, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 7154 (7th Cir.).
When it was undisputed that a deputy had asked
the plaintiff for his driver's license and proof of insurance, and that he had
replied that he had neither, the officer had probable cause to arrest him for
violations of Texas state law, so that there was no merit to the plaintiff's
assertion that his arrest was somehow unlawful. Unger v. Taylor, #08-40755,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4349 (Unpub. 5th Cir).
Officers arrested a man after a crime victim
identified him as the roofer he had hired to fix hurricane damage to his roof,
who had allegedly then victimized him. Charges were dropped when it was
determined that the arrestee was misidentified. The defendant officers were
entitled to summary judgment in the arrestee's civil rights lawsuit when there
was no evidence that they had any reason to believe that anyone else other than
the arrestee had committed the crime, given the victim's statements. The
officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Rushing v. Parker,
#09-12637, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 5450 (11th Cir.).
A police officer, acting on a request by a mall
owner, arrested the plaintiff when he refused, at the mall, to either remove a
shirt displaying a political statement or leave the premises. The arrestee
claimed that this violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The involvement
of a police officer to enforce the rights of a private property owner to oust
someone who did not comply with a request such as the removal of a shirt with a
political statement did not make it the action of the town in attempting to
suppress the political statement. Since the arrestee was repeatedly asked by
the mall to either remove the shirt and its message or leave the premises, he
was properly arrested when he refused to do so. Downs v. Town of Guilderland,
#507428, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 1419 (3rd Dept. A.D.).
A police officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity on claims that he manipulated a photo lineup to try to produce a false
identification of the plaintiff by a rape victim. The officer allegedly took
photos of the plaintiff for use in a photo lineup, repeatedly altering the
light settings on the camera with each picture in an effort to make the
photograph better match the “dark tan” skin tone of the suspect in the police
sketch of the suspect sought. While the arrestee was convicted of the crime, he
was later exonerated by DNA evidence. A knowing effort to obtain a false
identification of a suspect by fabricating evidence or otherwise acting
improperly to influence a witness's identification is a violation of due
process, and any reasonable officer would have known that acting in this manner
was a violation of constitutional rights. The officer allegedly acted in this
manner in anger over the fact that the plaintiff had refused to cooperate in
his investigation of unrelated burglaries. Good v. Curtis, #09-10341, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 3207 (5th Cir.).
A man protesting outside a cultural center was
informed by the president of the center's board of directors that he could not
bring his protest sign into the building. When the protestor refused to leave
the property, a deputy sheriff arrested him for trespass after first giving him
a warning to leave. The deputy was entitled to qualified immunity, as it was
reasonable for him to believe that the president was authorized to request the
protestor's removal, and he had at least arguable probable cause for the
arrest. Additionally, the officer could reasonably believe that ordering the
man to leave the property was not a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Moran v. Cameron, #09-11074, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1459 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a
motorist for DUI at the scene of a traffic stop and to transport her to central
breath testing, given her erratic driving, unusual behavior, and difficulties
in performing field sobriety tests. The officer, based on information then
available to him, did not act unreasonably in failing to accept the motorist's
excuses for her erratic driving. The plaintiff would be allowed, however, to
amend her complaint to claim that, while probable cause existed for her arrest,
it "evaporated" after she was taken to central breath testing. Mathis
v. Coats, #2D09-193, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 43 (Fla. App. 2nd Dist.).
A police officer who went to a woman's home to
respond to a domestic violence complaint concerning her boyfriend, who had
fled, was justified in arresting her for violating a state child endangerment
statute, based on her observations of the condition of the apartment, including
her concerns that the woman's son could hurt himself by picking up the razor
blades that were on the floor, ingesting the cigarette butts on the floor,
being attacked by the pit bull in the kitchen, or drowning in the sewage that
was in the bathtub. Herrera v. City of Albuquerque, #09-2010, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 27104 (10th Cir.).
In the absence of exigent circumstances, an
officer may not make a warrantless and non-consensual entry into a home to
arrest a routine felony suspect, and interpreting a Texas statute to allow such
arrests would not be objectively reasonable, so that a police officer was not
entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest and unlawful entry and search
claims. Denton v. Rievley, #08-6406, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24912 (Unpub. 6th
Cir.).
A canine control officer, who issued a summons to
the plaintiff after receiving complaints about his dog, did not violate his
Fourth Amendment rights, since a pre-arraignment, non-felony, summons mandating
a subsequent court appearance was not a "seizure." Burg v. Gosselin,
#09-0708, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 289 (2nd Cir.).
Although an affidavit for a search warrant had two
possibly deceptive misrepresentations, they were not "critical" for a
finding of probable cause. An identification of the wife in the home in
connection with a murder was sufficiently reliable and established probable
cause. Additionally, there was no requirement that the affidavit establish
probable cause to arrest her for the murder. It was sufficient that it
established probable cause for the search. The officers were also entitled to
qualified immunity for the subsequent arrests, since they relied, in good
faith, on legal advice from a prosecutor in making the arrests of the residents
of the home. Anonymous tips received, which claimed that someone else had
committed the murder, were insufficient to eliminate probable cause. Ewing v.
City of Stockton, #08-15732, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26799 (9th Cir.).
A deputy responding, with other officers, to a
call reporting that a man with a gun was threatening his wife, released a
police dog to locate the husband in the neighborhood, and then shot and killed
the husband when he refused to obey orders to put down his weapon, instead
aiming the gun at the officers. The use of the dog, under these circumstances, was
neither a use of deadly force nor excessive. Shooting the husband was
justified, as it was reasonable to think that he posed an immediate threat to
the officers and others. The deputy was entitled to qualified immunity, and the
county was not liable on a theory of alleged inadequate training. Thomson v.
Salt Lake County, Utah, #06-4304, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23677 (10th Cir.).
While a city and its officers did not have
probable cause to believe that all protesters arrested during a demonstration
knew that the protest lacked a required permit, the city need only show that
officers reasonably believed that those arrested were part of a rioting group
of participants in the protest who were damaging property, and, under the
circumstances, it could lawfully carry out a mass arrest without first giving
those arrested an order to disperse and time to comply. "[P]olice
witnesses must only be able to form a reasonable belief that the entire crowd
is acting as a unit and therefore all members of the crowd violated the
law...If police have probable cause to believe that the group they are
arresting is committing or has committed a crime, no more is necessary.
...Requiring a dispersal order in addition to the ordinary probable cause
threshold would be particularly anomalous in a case like this in which officers
have reason to believe that an entire crowd is engaged in or encouraging a
riot.” Further proceedings were still ordered concerning the factual
circumstances surrounding how the plaintiffs were arrested. Carr v. Dist. of
Columbia, #08-7083, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25482 (D.C. Cir).
A man arrested during a sting operation in which a
female police officer posed as a prostitute claimed that officers lacked
probable cause to arrest him. The female officer had a hidden microphone, which
allowed another officer, stationed nearby, to hear her conversations with
potential customers. The arrestee argued that the arresting officer could not
tell, listening to the conversation, whether he, or another man present, had made
particular statements to the female officer. The male officer, however, heard
two male voices engaged in negotiating a price for a sexual act, and could see
that the female officer was talking with two men, including the plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, it did not defeat probable cause for the arrest that
he could not determine which of the men made each specific statement. Probable
cause existed for both arrests. Mills v. City of Harrisburg, #09-1180, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 24094 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A city council ejected an audience member from a
meeting after he gave a silent one-second Nazi salute objecting to the
council's action in cutting off another audience member after his time to speak
expired. He was arrested when he refused to leave. A federal appeals court
ruled that this did not violate the arrestee's First Amendment rights, as he
was not ousted for a permissible expression of his point of view, but rather
for protesting a good faith attempt by the chairperson of the meeting to maintain
order and enforce council rules. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, No. 07-15814,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24123 (9th Cir.).
The facts as they appeared at the time gave the
officer probable cause to arrest a man for assaulting his wife when the
arrestee himself admitting pushing his wife after she had verbally and
physically provoked him. Additionally, even without this admission, the wife's
statement that her husband had pushed her was sufficient to provide probable
cause for arrest when the officer had no reason to disbelieve her. Holder v.
Town of Sandown, #08-1582, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23853 (1sr Cir.).
A detective interviewed a woman after she and her
husband were arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. The woman sued the
detective for wrongful arrest and detention. The detective could not be sued
for illegal arrest, both because he was not present at the time of the arrest
itself, and because, under the facts presented, there had been probable cause
for the arrest. A gun was found hidden in a car she owned and occupied and she
failed to produce a license. The detective also could not be held liable for
unlawful detention, as he had not made the decision to keep her in custody.
Conner v. Southfield Police Dept., #08-1516, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22303 (Unpub.
6th Cir.).
In a false arrest lawsuit brought by a
13-year-old Hispanic girl and a 14-year-old African-American girl, a federal
appeals court upheld a jury verdict for police on the 14-year-old's claims,
since there was probable cause for her arrest based on her physical resemblance
to a robber sought on three robberies and her identification by witnesses. The
13-year-old, however, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, since
officers, at the time of her arrest, only knew that she sat on a curb with the
other girl and gave her a red sweater to wear. Sherouse v. Ratchner, #08-2105,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17196 (10th Cir.).
A state trooper reasonably believed that he was
acting at the behest of a judge in arresting a man for violating a statute
prohibiting contemptuous behavior during court proceedings for refusing to show
the officer, after arriving at court, what was in a paper bag he carried. The
trooper's conversation with the judge about the incident provided him with
arguable probable cause for the arrest. Droz v. McCadden, #08-0241, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 20370 (2nd Cir.).
Based on a videotape of an arrest, it was clear
that the arrestee had disobeyed a lawful order from the officer to sign a
citation for lacking vehicle registration and an inoperable tag light. The
court also found no evidence that the officer acted with deliberate
indifference to the arrestee's medical needs, since the arrestee herself
declined medical treatment and walked to the police vehicle without assistance.
O'Donnell v. Derrig, #09-10827, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18427 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Holding that an arrestee's false arrest lawsuit
against former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft could go forward, a federal
appeals court panel said that the government's alleged policy of using a
federal material witness statute to detain innocent persons suspected of
terrorism without charges was "a painful reminder of some of the most
ignominious chapters of our national history," and "repugnant."
If true, the plaintiff's arrest was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights,
and Ashcroft was not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claims.
The defendant was acting in an investigative rather than prosecutorial role in
detaining the plaintiff, barring prosecutorial immunity. There were, however,
inadequate assertions of Ashcroft's personal involvement to render him
potentially liable for the arrestee's allegedly harsh conditions of
confinement. Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, #06-36059, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20000 (9th Cir.).
A motorist stopped for speeding was arrested for
allegedly unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm in violation of a state
statute. The arrestee argued that his arrest was unlawful because, although his
concealed-carry permit had expired, the weapon was, at the time of the arrest,
securely encased and placed in his vehicle's center console, making its
transportation legal. A federal appeals court found that the officers were
entitled to qualified immunity, and had arguable probable cause to make the
arrest, as Florida state law was unsettled on the question of whether placing a
gun in a car's center console rendered it "securely encased" in a box
or container with a lid, as required by statute. Additionally, the officers
acted pursuant to advice they had received from a prosecutor. Poulakis v.
Rogers, #08-15425, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17714 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
When a man asked officers to leave his home and
one of them failed to comply, any consensual encounter was over. An officer
lacked probable cause to support his belief that the man had violated a state's
obstruction of justice statutes, and he could not, without violating the Fourth
Amendment, remain present based solely on a "hunch" that the man
"knew more" than he was saying. The officer was not entitled to
qualified immunity as he did not act in an objectively reasonable manner under
clearly established law. The officer's further act, in detaining the man
handcuffed in the back of a police vehicle for three hours after he agreed to
help the officer locate a suspect, constituted an unlawful arrest for which no
justification was stated. The appeals court ordered a judgment as a matter of
law in favor of the plaintiff and a trial on the issue of damages. Manzanares
v. Higdon, #07-2156, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17817 (10th Cir.).
A storekeeper's arrest by a police officer
following an altercation with a former employee that was captured on videotape
was supported by probable cause. The officer, having found probable cause to
arrest the storekeeper for battery after watching one videotape of the
incident, had no obligation to also watch a second videotape from a different
camera which the storekeeper claimed better supported his version of the
incident. McBride v. Grice, No. 08-3556, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17840 (7th Cir.).
A police officer had probable cause to arrest a
woman for burglary of her husband's residence when it was established that she
did not live there any more, that the couple was going through a divorce
proceeding, that the husband had changed the locks, and that she had entered
the home and removed property while the husband was away. Finigan v. Marshall,
#07-0964, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16680 (2nd Cir.).
An arrestee claimed that various police personnel
began a pattern of harassment of her, conducting surveillance of her
activities, following her, asking inappropriate questions, making statements
and threats about her private relationships, and falsely arresting and
imprisoning her. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a
false arrest claim. Massachusetts state law on disorderly conduct has been
interpreted by state courts in such a manner that arrests for disorderly
conduct based solely on the use of offensive language have been ruled violative
of the First Amendment. The officers stated that they arrested the plaintiff
for disorderly conduct solely on the basis of her use of offensive language, so
that a reasonable jury could find that probable cause for the arrest was
lacking. Philbrook v. Perrigo, #07-11476, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64188 (D.
Mass.).
Police officer investigating a report of a
civilian car using police-like strobe lights had probable cause to arrest a
motorist found driving such a vehicle with the strobe lights activated and
charge him with impersonating an officer. Given the arrestee's admission that
his vehicle had rear strobe lights, his dispute as to whether the vehicle also
had front strobe lights was not relevant. Baker v. Moskau, #08-17236, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 14343 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
While police were arresting someone in front of a
crowd, shots were heard, and one of the officers identified a man standing in
front of a building as the shooter, and he was arrested for firing a gun.
Despite later dismissal of the charges, there was probable cause for the arrest
and other officers did not act unreasonably in relying on a fellow officer's
identification of the arrestee as the shooter. One punch to the arrestee's body
did not show excessive used of force when he had been "doing something"
with his hands, rendering him difficult to handcuff. Husbands v. City of New
York, #07-3657, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14122 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A police officer arrested a motorist for fleeing
and eluding after an attempted traffic stop for speeding. While the charges
were subsequently dismissed because the officer did not appear at the trial,
this did not alter the fact that there had been probable cause for the arrest.
The motorist did not dispute the fact that the officer's emergency lights were
activated well before a stoplight, or that he failed to pull over before
traveling approximately a quarter of a mile after the stoplight. Hardesty v.
City of Ecorse, Civil #08-14498, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46289 (E.D. Mich.).
A motorist was arrested during a traffic stop
while he was on his way to the police department with a loaded handgun observed
on the console of his truck. Probable cause existed to arrest him for assault,
since the officers then knew that he had stated that he was on his way to the police
department to shoot an officer who had arrested him during a previous incident,
that he had loaded his gun, and that he had taken his gun with him in the
vehicle. Rejecting claims of false arrest and excessive force, an appeals court
ruled that, given these facts, it was reasonable to believe that he was
searching for the intended victim of his planned violent act with the intent to
use force with a dangerous weapon. Rome v. Guillory, #08-31221, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 13739 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A motorist himself admitted that he had not been
wearing his seat belt with its shoulder strap across his chest, so that the
officer had probable cause to arrest him, despite the fact that he was
subsequently acquitted of the seatbelt charge, resisting arrest, and battery.
The force used by the officer was not excessive because the arrestee physically
resisted being handcuffed. Collier v. Montgomery, #08-30665, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 10676 (5th Cir.).
State conservation officers were entitled to
qualified immunity for arresting men whom they found illegally transporting
bows, which did not have locking devices to render them inoperable during
transport. The officers had such probable cause as soon as they could see that
the bows were not contained in a case and did not look inoperable. Mutter v.
Sanders, #06-3259, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37243 (C.D. Ill.).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a woman
for trespass on the premises of a motel, and was therefore entitled to summary
judgment in her false arrest lawsuit. Bryant v. City of Cayce, #07-2162, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 9976 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
A trial court did not act erroneously by
consolidating two lawsuits an arrestee had filed concerning his arrest and
detention, or in excluding evidence that he was acquitted of a criminal charge
stemming from his arrest. Admitting evidence of the acquittal, the court found,
could have misled the jury on the plaintiff's false arrest and excessive force
claims. The court upheld a jury verdict for the officers. Adams v.
Szczerbinski, #08-1456, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9899 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A police officer stopped a motorist, claiming
that his radar gun recorded her driving at 50 mph in a 40 mph zone, while the
motorist asserted that she had set her cruise control at 40 mph. The motorist,
who was placed under arrest, refused to get out of her car because of the
presence of her infant grandchild in the backseat of the vehicle, and called
her husband to pick up the child. A police chief on the scene smashed the driver's
window open, and she was pulled from the car and "roughly"
handcuffed, suffering injuries in the process. Overturning summary judgment for
the defendants, a federal appeals court found that the officer's credibility
was "questionable," and that the motorist disputed the claim that she
had refused to sign a traffic ticket, raising doubt about the validity of the
arrest. It also found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether
excessive force was used in response to the motorist's "passive refusal"
to get out of her car until someone came to pick up her granddaughter. Deville
v. Marcantela, #07-31049, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9403 (5th Cir.).
An arrestee could not pursue federal civil rights
claims for malicious prosecution or abuse of process when Illinois provided
state law remedies for such claims. The arrestee's claim that a detective
lacked probable cause or a warrant for his arrest did state a federal civil
rights claim, but it was time barred under an Illinois two-year statute of
limitations. Adams v. Rotkvich, #08-3998, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9900 (Unpub. 7th
Cir.).
Even if a trial court erred in instructing a jury
that officers could have lawfully arrested the plaintiff for actions he took in
his front yard, this was a harmless error, since the arrest of the plaintiff
was not based on his actions in his front yard, but for allegedly assaulting
the officers in his backyard. Claims of unlawful arrest, excessive force, and
malicious prosecution were rejected. The trial court properly rejected claims
against a mayor and a mayor's assistant, since there was no evidence that they
participated in any violation of the arrestee's rights. The plaintiff was
properly awarded $20 in damages on his claim that officers engaged in
unreasonable search and seizure when they came to his house, accompanied by a
police dog, to ticket abandoned vehicles, and properly denied the plaintiff
attorneys' fees in light of his limited success on only one of several claims,
and the award of nominal damages. Brocuglio v. Proulx, #07-1676, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 8892 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.)
Despite the fact that an arrestee was ultimately
not convicted of burglary charges, the arresting officers still had probable
cause at the time of the arrest under the totality of the circumstances. He had
been identified by the person who reported the burglary, and refused to respond
to the officers' questions when found standing in a parking lot near the
vicinity of the burglarized car. Additionally, his lack of cooperation during
the booking process interfered with the officers' ability to get clear
fingerprints from him at the time. Young v. City of Wildwood, #08-2035, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 8581 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Police had probable cause to arrest a motorist
for driving under the influence because he was acting erratically, appeared
intoxicated, and could have constituted a danger to the police, others, and
himself. It turned out, in fact, that he had experienced a diabetic incident
while driving his car. When the officers observed that he had an insulin pump,
they called for emergency medical services, and acted to assist him when they
became aware of his medical needs, five minutes after their arrival. The court
found no evidence of excessive use of force, including no evidence of the
excessive use of force in handcuffing. Solovy v. Morabito, #2:08-cv-12303, 2009
U.S. Dist. Lexis 25701 (E.D. Mich.).
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the
rejection of a police officer's lawsuit against prosecutors and officers for arresting
and prosecuting him for the murder of his wife, who actually died of natural
causes, a rare heart condition, as determined by a medical exam. The federal
appeals court below held that prosecutors had absolute immunity on their
decision to charge him, and an officer who testified during grand jury
proceedings had absolute witness immunity. Further, probable cause to arrest
existed at the time of the arrest, based on an initial determination by an
on-call medical examiner who stated that the cause of death was asphyxiation.
While charges were later dropped, by that time the officer lost custody of two
young daughters, and suffered a suspension from his job. Andros v. Gross, No.
07-2259, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20187 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.), cert. denied, Andros v.
Gross, 08-919, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3149.
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man for
grand larceny of a yacht which a repossession company had reported stolen. The
man had taken back the yacht after it was repossessed. The officers, at the
time of the arrest, were presented with papers by the repossession company
showing that it had repossessed the yacht and executed an affidavit as a victim
of theft. It was only later that more investigation showed that the arrestee
had entered into an agreement for repayment with the company holding the
mortgage on the yacht, and therefore had not stolen t. Corines v. Broward
County Sheriff's Dept., #08-14822, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7809 (Unpub. 11th
Cir.).
The plaintiff's arrest for armed robbery was
supported by probable case when the victim identified him as the black male who
robbed him at gunpoint before fleeing in a blue vehicle. Additionally, at the
time, the plaintiff admitted to the detective that he was involved in the
crime. Atterbury v. Miami Police Dept., #08-15519, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7690
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An officer ordered a man out of a parked car with
parking lights on outside a drug store when he observed him apparently
sleeping, and breathing rapidly. The officer patted him down and arrested him
for being under the influence of a controlled substance. A federal appeals
court found that there was reasonable suspicion to order that man out of the
car and investigate the possibility of use of a controlled substance, but that
the pat-down search violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights in the
absence of anything to provide reasonable suspicion of possession of a weapon.
Impoundment of the suspect's car after his arrest was justified under the
"community caretaking" doctrine. Wrongful arrest and detention claims
were rejected. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, #04-56832, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
6394 (9th Cir.).
Officers did not act unreasonably for arresting a
man for violating a domestic violence order of protection after his wife told
them he had violated the order. A reasonable officer would not have believed
her later statement that the protection order had been vacated when she
complained about her husband violating it after the date of the alleged
vacating. Further, the record contained no evidence of a written order vacating
the protective order. Even if it actually had been vacated, under these
circumstances no reasonable officer would have believed that the arrest was
illegal, given no proof that the order was not still in effect. Martin v.
Russell, #08-2577, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9642 (8th Cir.).
Because of the "chaos" at the
scene of a bicycle and car accident, and the female doctor's refusal to present
available medical identification, it was reasonable for an officer to believe
that there was probable cause to arrest her, despite the fact that she had
actually stopped to attempt to provide medical assistance to a boy on a bike
struck by another vehicle. Her action in resisting the officer when he grabbed
her arm justified the force employed against her, and there was no evidence
that officers present knew of her heart condition before she suffered a
cardiopulmonary arrest and died after she was placed in a police vehicle.
Arshad v. Congemi, #08-30061, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4792 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Drug arrestees failed to show that a sheriff and
his chief deputy acted recklessly in using a confidential informant to provide
information on the basis of which they were arrested. The informant, allegedly
trying to profit from appearing to make controlled drug buys, reportedly only
pretended to buy drugs from them, placing the buy money in his sandals and
keeping it, and delivering a baking soda mixture to deputies, while telling
them it was purchased drugs. This was not discovered until the mixture was
found not to be drugs when tested prior to the arrestees' court dates. The
defendants acted reasonably in checking the informant's criminal record, and
making him wear a wire recording device during some of the supposed drug buys.
They did not know he would engage in a scheme to bypass their precautions by
using a compartment in his sandals to hide a baking soda mixture. An arrest
resulting from false evidence negligently gathered by officers is insufficient
to establish a violation of constitutional rights. Robertson v. Elliott,
#08-1839, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4280 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Police officers did not violate the rights of a man
when they arrested him without a warrant at the conclusion of a twelve hour
armed standoff at his apartment. The incident began when he pointed one of his
eighteen rifles at a private security guard investigating loud noises, and
continued when the "noticeably intoxicated" suspect also pointed the
rifle at arriving officers, threatening to shoot them. The standoff ended when
he finally came out and let the officers take him into custody. The court found
that once exigent circumstances justify a warrantless arrest, the officers may
continue to make one, as long as they are still actively engaged in doing so.
"This remains true regardless of whether the exigency that justified the
seizure has dissipated by the time the suspect is taken into full physical
custody." The appeals court overturned the trial court's judgment as a
matter of law for the plaintiff. The trial court reasoned that the officers had
ample time to obtain an arrest warrant. The appeals court reinstated a jury
verdict for the police. Fisher v. San Jose, #04-16095, 558 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.
2009).
In a case where an arrestee served almost
fourteen years for kidnapping, rape, and molestation before being exonerated by
DNA evidence and a confession by the actual perpetrator, there was no
indication that the defendants ignored exculpatory evidence, but there was a
material question of fact as to whether one defendant officer fabricated
evidence against the plaintiff, requiring further proceedings. McSherry v. Long
Beach, #06-55837, 560 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2009).
An officer had probable cause to arrest a minor
male for assault and harassment after he injured several employees attempting
to restrain him as he tried to leave the hospital where he had been admitted
for psychiatric treatment, where he was waiting for an available bed. Jouthe v.
City of New York, #05-CV-1374, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18163 (E.D.N.Y.).
Arresting officers' belief that a store customer
had presented a counterfeit $100 bill was not "plainly incompetent,"
entitling them to qualified immunity on his false arrest claim. In fact, the
bill presented was a genuine 1985 series $100 bill, which lacked certain
anti-counterfeiting features of current $100 bills. Prior to the arrest, a
counterfeit detector pen apparently gave indications that the bill was genuine.
Rodis v. San Francisco, #05-15522, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5444 (9th Cir.).
A deputy sheriff reasonably relied on statements
by a store employee and a store surveillance videotape in arresting a female
African-American customer for shoplifting. The videotape showed her entering a
fitting room with five pieces of merchandise, but leaving carrying only three,
with a price tag sticking out from her bag, and her bag appearing to be fuller
than it had previously been. This, combined with statements by a store employee
that the missing pieces of merchandise could not be found, justified the
customer's arrest and prosecution. Jones v. J.C. Penny's Department Stores,
Inc., #07-2870-cv, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6250 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A parole agent who placed a man under arrest based on a
mistaken belief that he had violated the terms of his probation was not
entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for allegedly
placing him in jail intentionally using a form identifying him as a parole,
rather than probation, violator, thus depriving him of a prompt probable cause
hearing before a judge, and his continued incarceration for 13 days. Drogosch
v. Metcalf, No. 08-1249, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3728 (6th Cir.).
If the facts alleged by an arrestee were true,
officers lacked probable cause to arrest her for acting as an accessory after
the fact to her son's alleged crime. While it was true that she had previously
lied about the location of her son, the fact that she delayed answering her
home door at night, but subsequently cooperated with the officers, did not
provide support for the officer's assertion that she intended to hinder them
and harbor her son and acted on that intention. Evans v. City of Etowah, Tenn.,
No. 08-5463, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3672 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Probable cause existed to arrest and prosecute a
husband for obstruction based on his actions when officers arrived at his
residence in response to reports of a domestic disturbance. His non-cooperation
prevented them from securing the scene and properly investigating whether he
had assaulted his wife. There was also probable cause to subsequently prosecute
the wife also for obstruction of the officers. Lassiter v. Bremerton, No.
07-35848, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4013 (9th Cir.).
If an arrestee's story was true, that officers
arrested him on drug charges after an individual only spoke to him for a minute
about his jacket as he stood outside a dry cleaner, there was no probable cause
for his arrest. The defendants were entitled to summary judgment, however, on a
malicious abuse of process claim, however, since a news report concerning
quotas for traffic tickets was not sufficient to support a claim that the
plaintiff had been arrested to meet a quota for drug arrests. Douglas v. City
of New York, 06 Civ. 6134, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8328 (S.D.N.Y,).
Store owner could proceed with his First
Amendment claim arising from his arrest and prosecution for attaching, to a
"Road Construction Ahead" traffic sign, a warning about a sheriff's
checkpoint nearby. The trial court improperly considered information outside
the complaint and improperly drew inferences in favor of deputies in granting
dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiff's speech had not been
constitutionally protected and that he had failed to show a lack of probable
cause for his arrest. Rodriguez v. Rutter, No. 07-51423, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
2440 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Whether or not an officer or his colleagues had a
retaliatory motive for stopping a motorist for speeding because he had
supported a candidate running for sheriff in that day's primary election was
irrelevant when the officer had probable cause based on observation of the
speeding vehicle. The trial court also detailed subsequent observations
concerning signs of possible intoxication, which also supported the arrest.
Hubble v. Voorhees, No. 06-3546, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3732 (Unpub.7th Cir.).
Officer who arrested a man in connection with the
operation of his repossession business and seized some of his property while
doing so had probable cause for his actions. While he received
"inconsistent" allegations of criminal activity from an informant, he
independently corroborated several of these allegations during his thirty-seven
day investigation. Although charges against the arrestee were later dismissed,
this did not negate the existence of probable cause at the time of the arrest.
Case v. Eslinger, No. 08-10657, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2141 (11th Cir.).
Store customer who refused to wait in line with
other customers to enter the premises, demanding to be admitted, and who was,
as a result, removed from the property and permanently barred from the store
failed to show that police lacked probable cause to arrest him, based on their
personal observations of his conduct. Singleton v. St. Charles Parish Sheriff's
Department, No. 08-30471, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 884 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Deputies who encountered a female motorist during
a traffic stop allegedly learned that she was pregnant, bleeding, and in
distress, as well as in the process of driving herself to seek emergency
treatment at a hospital, but still detained her for the purpose of issuing her
a traffic citation. When she drove away without permission, if this was true,
they should have known that she was not attempting to flee them, but was acting
out of necessity, as she drove to a nearby hospital emergency room, and ran
from her car, yelling, "Help! I'm pregnant and bleeding." The
deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim, but
there was no evidence that they used excessive force, and they caused her no
injuries. Williams v. Sirmons, No. 08-13218, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 563 (11th
Cir.).
When a conversation between a man, his
friend, and an officer posing as a prostitute included "extensive"
talk about exchanging money for sexual services, including the terms and
planned implementation, arresting the man did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights. The court rejected the arrestee's argument, after the charges against
him had been dropped, that the arrest was based on either entrapment or a
response to "innocent repartee." The court also rejected the
plaintiff's argument that his race played a role in the arrest. Mills v. City
of Harrisburg, Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-0882, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97607 (M.D.
Pa.).
Police officer did not have an arrestee's consent
to enter his home to arrest him, but allegedly simply entered through the front
door after confirming his identity, grabbed the arrestee's arm, and wound up
pushing him approximately six feet before arresting him. The arrestee
immediately asked to see a warrant, and the warrantless entry to arrest him was
not justified by either consent or exigent circumstances. Officer was not
entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Shepard v. Davis, No. 07-11307,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24172 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Police officer had probable cause to arrest a man
on charges of violating a valid restraining order when he admitted that he had
been taking pictures of a female city attorney who obtained the order to
prevent him from harassing or stalking her. Additionally, the attorney acted as
a private citizen, and not on behalf of the city, in obtaining the order. Todd
v. Wismar, No. 07-55335, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26220 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Arrest of parolee for being a felon in possession
of a firearm and for attempted armed robbery, which also resulted in the
revocation of his parole, was supported by probable cause, federal appeals
court rules, rejecting the arrestee's claim that officers conspired to deprive
him of his constitutional rights. Smith v. Gomez, No. 08-1102, 550 F.3d 613
(7th Cir. 2008).
Federal appeals court overturns a grant of qualified
immunity to two officers on a man's false arrest claim. If the facts were as
alleged by the plaintiff, his arrest was carried out without probable cause,
since he was not publicly intoxicated and did not obstruct the officers. The
officers allegedly also lacked probable cause to think that he had disturbed
the peace, used language that could provoke violence, or had engaged in
fighting in public. The arrest occurred before the officers learned that the
arrestee concealed a weapon on his person. A third officer, however, was
entitled to qualified immunity and could not be held vicariously liable for the
other officers' actions. That officer also lacked a duty to carry out a blood
alcohol test on the arrestee, and there was insufficient evidence that he acted
in bad faith in failing to preserve evidence regarding the arrestee's blood
alcohol level. Marullo v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. 07-56839, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 26640 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
While a reasonable person could believe that an
officer's actions after a prostitution sting backfired imposed restrictions on
her freedom of movement similar to those involved in a formal arrest, a federal
appeals court agreed that there was no unlawful detention. The officer,
however, was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's excessive
force claim, since a reasonable jury could decide that the force used against
the plaintiff, which was severe enough to cause a rotator cuff tear, a
first-degree shoulder separation, and contusions, were disproportionate, since
she was, at most, a petty thief suspect, and was not resisting the officer.
Morelli v. Webster. No. 08-1759, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 115 January 7, 2009 (1st
Cir.).
When it was unclear what an off-duty officer said
to an on-duty officer, it could not be determined on the record whether the
on-duty officer had probable cause to arrest a shopper. The on-duty officer,
therefore, was not entitled to qualified immunity in a false arrest lawsuit.
The off-duty officer had approached the shopper in the parking lot concerning a
dog she left unattended in her car, and, during the ensuing encounter,
allegedly broke one of her ribs, as well as a tooth. Ciardiello v. Sexton, Civ.
No. 06-4007, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90223 (D.N.J.).
Trial court improperly ignored plaintiff's
argument that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, focusing solely
on his excessive force claim in granting summary judgment for the officers. The
officers, in arguing that they had probable cause for the arrest, clearly knew
that they had to defend themselves against a false arrest claim. Further
proceedings were ordered on the false arrest claim, while summary judgment was
upheld on the excessive force claim. Grimes v Yoos, No. 08-10830, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 22697 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A suspect's own statements concerning the
circumstances of an officer's attempted arrest of him showed that there had
been ample probable cause to support an arrest. He admitted that the officer
acted lawfully in pulling over his vehicle, and that he had just engaged in an
argument with his estranged wife, following which his girlfriend called 911 to
complain about his conduct. Smith v. Hermans, Civil Case No. 06-CV-12794, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 78532 (E.D. Mich.).
An arrest of a store customer who set off a
security sensor when he left the store was supported by probable cause. The
officer made the arrest on the basis of watching a surveillance videotape and
statements from store employees, one of whom found unpaid for merchandise on
the customer. The customer later pled guilty to a charge (breach of the peace)
stemming from the incident for which he was arrested, which barred him from
challenging probable cause, as required for both his false arrest and malicious
prosecution claims. White v. Martel-Moylan, Civil No. 3:07CV1794, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 94188 (D. Conn.).
State judicial marshals were not entitled
to quasi-judicial immunity for telling a man that he had to remain in a
courtroom for five minutes and using force to stop him when he tried to leave
after three minutes. They were also not entitled to qualified immunity on a
false arrest claim when no judge had ordered him to stay in the courtroom, and
a reasonable marshal should have understood that it was unlawful to detain him.
Stanley v. Muzio, No. 3:07cv59, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74879 (D. Conn.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man for
trespassing after he started to flee at their approach when encountered in an
alley in a high crime area posted with no trespassing signs. They also used
reasonable force, including tackling, a "hammer lock" hold, and
handcuffs to subdue him, in light of his resistance. Harvey v. City of Stuart,
No. 08-10403, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22233 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Even though DNA evidence indicated that a
man arrested for allegedly shooting an officer did not match any of the DNA at
the crime scene, there was still probable cause for his arrest when he was
identified as the shooting suspect by a witness viewing a photo array, he was
present at the crime scene at the time of the incident, and he suffered a
bullet wound to his shoulder, just as the actual suspect allegedly did.
Celestin v. City of New York, No. 04-CV-3009, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81112
(E.D.N.Y.).
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol. The motorist's
bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and other facts known to the officer, as well
as the motorist's failing of a field sobriety test, provided the officer with
probable cause to make the arrest. The court also held that the officer did not
violate the motorist's due process rights by failing to honor the motorist's
request to take a blood or urine test to establish his purported innocence and
avoid a license suspension. The motorist was afforded adequate due process in
subsequent administrative hearings concerning the license suspension. Christman
v. Pietrzak, No. 08-11493, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21733 (11th Cir.).
A woman told police that her roommate was trying
to hit her boyfriend with a screwdriver, and the boyfriend stated that the
roommate came towards him with the screwdriver and threw it at him. During an
arrest of the roommate for domestic violence, the roommate's arm was broken.
Rejecting both false arrest and excessive force claims, a federal appeals court
found that there was probable cause for the arrest, and sufficient evidence
from which a jury could believe the officer's statements indicating that the
arm was broken during the use of a restraint hold used after the arrestee
elbowed the officer. Rosa v City of Fort Myers, FL., No. 07-15763, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 22243 (Unpub. 11th Cir.),
Three former police officers filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit arising from the Los Angeles Police Department's
investigation and prosecution of them after they were implicated in wrongdoing
by a former LAPD officer in an event that was known as the
"Rampart Scandal." The three plaintiff officers were
acquitted and claimed that the defendants, including prosecutors, the city, and
the former chief of police conducted an improper and negligent investigation,
and that they had been arrested without probable cause for falsifying a police
report and conspiring to file such a report. While claims against the
prosecutor and county were dismissed, a jury returned a verdict against the
city and former police chief for damages of $5,000,001 for each of the
officers. Upholding these awards, an appeals court noted that the jury found
violations of the officers' constitutional rights, and that the violations
stemmed from the city's official policy. The appeals court further noted that
the former police chief was an authorized policymaker, and was
"instrumental" in instituting the proceedings against the plaintiffs,
with an alleged policy of preparing more cases for the filing of charges
against officers in a quick manner, with or without probable cause. This, the
court concluded, could have been found by a reasonable jury to have resulted in
the officers' arrests. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-55519, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 14892 (9th Cir.).
While an officer informed the plaintiff on the
phone that her custody was sought on a claim for unlawfully firing a gun within
the city limits, resulting in her surrendering herself to a jail the following
day, an amended complaint in the criminal case properly charged her with firing
a BB gun, which was also a crime under the same ordinance. Probable cause for
the arrest did exist, on this basis. Foreman v. City of Port St. Lucie, No.
08-12562, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20733 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A male arrestee provided no evidence that
would support a claim for supervisory liability against an officer who was not
involved in his arrest. As for a claim by a female arrestee charged with
disturbing the peace by intoxication, there were factual issues as to whether a
reasonable officer would have known that he was violating her rights by
arresting her when there was "little evidence" to support a
conclusion that she was violating the intoxication statute. Excessive force
claims against an arresting officer were rejected, however. Mesa v. Prejean,
No. 07-30953, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20154 (5th Cir.).
A jury found that there was no probable
cause for an arrest, but that there was probable cause for the arrestee's
prosecution, and it awarded the arrestee $1 in compensatory and $3,000 in punitive
damages for the false arrest claim. The trial court found that the jury's
verdict was inconsistent, and required the granting of a new trial. A witness
who signed a statement that the arrestee had carried a gun at the time of the
incident at issue, which the officer used as the basis of the arrest, recanted
at the arrestee's criminal trial, stating that the officer had used force and
threats to coerce him into incriminating the arrestee. Annunziata v. City of
New York, #06 Civ. 7637, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66705 (S.D.N.Y.).
When a motorist was found guilty of speeding and
improper start, her false arrest claims were barred because success in her
federal civil rights lawsuit would have implied the invalidity of her
conviction which had not been set aside. The motorist, an African-American,
claimed that, after she was given a ticket for speeding, she pulled back into
traffic, and the officer immediately pulled her over, with a second officer
placing her in handcuffs when he arrived. She claimed that the officers made
alterations to the original ticket to show that she was driving 90 miles an
hour, was driving recklessly, and had made an improper start. Any claims for
"racial profiling" were based on the same facts concerning the
citation, and were therefore also barred. Hutson v. Felder, Civil Action No. 5:
07-183, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69642 (E.D. Ky.).
A motorist cited for driving offenses did
not show that his constitutional rights to due process or equal protection were
violated because the citation and his arrest were made by an uncertified
officer not under the direct supervision and control of a certified officer.
There was no case law establishing a fundamental right to only be cited or
arrested by a certified officer, and the plaintiff failed to show that the town
and its officers treated other similarly situated persons differently. Matthews
v. Autaugaville, No. 2:06cv185, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 63887 (M.D. Ala.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
man for neglect of a child based on finding him pulling a two-year-old daughter
around in a wagon in 53-degree temperature while she was wearing only a soiled
blanket. At the time, the arrestee allegedly smelled of alcohol and beer cans
were also present in the wagon. The officers did not violate the child's
privacy by lifting the blanket to see if she had other clothes on, as they were
obligated under the circumstances to do so to check on her well being.
Trepanier v. City of Blue Island, No. 03-C-7433, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75026
(N.D. Ill.).
Officer had probable cause to arrest motorist for
speeding after measuring his speed through the use of a radar gun and also
determining, after stopping him, that his driver's license had been revoked.
The court also rejected the motorist's claim that the officer used excessive
force against him, noting that there was no demonstrable physical injury
present. Phelps v. Szubinski, No. 04-CV-773, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72253
(E.D.N.Y.).
A woman called police and claimed that her husband
had been drinking and was trying to leave with their infant daughter. The
officers found that the husband was sober and he went to visit relatives. He
slept in the same bed as the daughter and another child, and when he woke up,
the daughter was dead. The wife claimed that officers who responded to her call
improperly threatened to arrest her if she removed her daughter from her
husband's car. While the officers claimed that they had a reasonable belief
that the mother was about to violate a Tennessee state domestic assault law,
the court ruled that the mother, at the time, had a legal right to her
daughter, so that removing the child from the car would not have violated the
statute. The mother was denied summary judgment, as were the officers on a
Fourth Amendment claim, but they were granted summary judgment on a 14th
Amendment due process claim. The mother failed to show that the city was liable
on the basis of inadequate training of the officers. Adams v. Hendersonville,
No. 3:06-cv-00788, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72003 (M.D. Tenn.).
After a woman called 911 to complain about a
domestic dispute, her boyfriend was found dead from a gunshot wound in the back
of his head. She was interrogated by police for between six and eight hours
before she confessed, but a jury later acquitted her of murder charges.
Interrogation techniques used by deputies, such as telling her that she would
never see her children again, not letting her sleep, and not allowing her to
take anti-anxiety medicine, did not shock the conscience in violation of her
due process rights. The court further found that medical examiners did not have
a duty under Florida law to continue investigating the decedent's cause of
death, even though the evidence did not rule out the possibility that the wound
might have been self-inflicted. The court also found that there was probable
cause for the arrest under these circumstances. Smith v. Campbell, No.
08-11161, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19085 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
After an explosion and fire in a woman's garage,
which killed her cousin, a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity
for arresting her for maintaining a common nuisance. While in actuality
probable caused did not exist for the arrest, as there was a lack of evidence
concerning the arrestee's knowledge of drug activities allegedly engaged in by
others in the garage, the circumstances gave the officer a reasonable, even if
mistaken basis to believe that the arrestee was aware of what was going on
there. Wheeler v. Lawson, No. 07-1791, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17792 (7th Cir.).
Probable cause existed for the arrest of a former
park police officer on charges of sexual abuse based on facts known to other
park police officers at the time of the arrest. The plaintiff himself did not
dispute the facts known to other officers at the time of his arrest, but only
the "criminality" of his sexual encounter with the purported victim.
The charges against him were eventually dismissed, but there was no showing of
improper conduct by the arresting officers. Koester v. Lanfranchi, No. 06-5814,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17489 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
An African-American motorist was stopped by
several police vehicles that were searching for a similar car in the area, and
he was stunned and handcuffed, before they decided not to fully arrest or
charge him. The court declined to grant summary judgment to the officers on the
basis of qualified immunity, finding that there were factual issues concerning
whether an arrest was made, and whether probable cause existed for doing so, as
well as about the reasonableness of the force used. Thurman v. Village of Hazel
Crest, No. 06C7194, 2008 U.S.Dist. Lexis 59962 (N.D. Ill.).
An arrestee was awarded $1 in nominal damages and
$250,000 in punitive damages against a police officer in a lawsuit arising out
of a shooting by an officer resulting in the death of her deaf-mute son. The
lawsuit did not challenge the legality of the shooting, but claimed that
officers improperly acted against the arrestee and her other surviving son
following the shooting. The claims asserted included an allegedly unlawful
search of the arrestee's house and false arrest. The appeals court upheld a
reduction of the punitive damages to $5,000, finding that the jury's award was
unconstitutionally excessive. The appeals court found that she did not present
enough to create a triable issue concerning the county's alleged negligent
training of the officers, and upheld a jury instruction limiting the
plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages to the distress experienced
during the two days surrounding the incident. The appeals court also overturned
an order denying the plaintiff attorneys' fees as a sanction for her attorney's
failure to appear at a hearing, since he did not have any notice that a personal
appearance was required. Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, No. 05-56118, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 18426 (9th Cir.).
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting or citing motorists for allegedly violating an ordinance prohibiting
the use of cell phones without the use of a hands free device while driving.
The officers had probable cause to believe that the motorists violated the
ordinance, and the ordinance was not "so obviously unconstitutional"
that the officers should have refused to enforce it. The ordinance was
rationally justified by safety concerns. Schor v. Daley, No. 07 C 7119, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 50602 (N.D. Ill.).
While a city police officer allegedly lacked
jurisdiction under Arkansas state law to arrest a motorist on an interstate
highway, this did not mean that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, since
he did have probable cause to make an arrest for reckless driving committed in
his presence. Rose v. City of Mulberry, No. 07-1645, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14334
(8th Cir.).
Motorist's erratic driving was sufficient to
create reasonable suspicion that she was driving under the influence, entitling
a deputy to conduct a stop and a standard roadside sobriety test, which she
failed. There was probable cause to make an arrest, despite subsequent
toxicology tests that showed that she was not actually intoxicated. Plaintiff
arrestee sued defendant deputy under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging violations of
her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amundsen v. Jones, No. 06-4310, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14991 (10th Cir.).
Based on statements by two persons who said they
were accomplices to the crimes for which the arrestees were taken into custody,
the officers had probable cause to arrest them for sodomy and child
endangerment. There was no evidence presented that the accomplice witnesses
were told or otherwise induced to make untruthful statements. The mere fact
that an accomplice witness was given a reward for making a statement did not,
standing alone, mean that it was false. Daniels v. D'Aurizo, No. 05-CV-6058,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52179 (W.D.N.Y.).
Man's expulsion from a town's community center
and his later arrest and prosecution for trespass did not violate his Fourth or
Fourteenth Amendment right or his First Amendment rights. The town had a right
to limit access to its facilities, and this action did not silence or chill his
speech. There was probable cause to arrest him when he returned to the center
despite having been told not to return. Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, No.
06-4897, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15403 (2nd Cir.).
Police chief had probable cause to arrest a woman
who was injured during an altercation he was investigating. In the course of
the investigation, he properly found probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for
possession of a controlled substance, public intoxication, and other charges.
Cain v. Irvin, No. 07-6080, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15347 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
State troopers and investigators lacked objectively
reasonable grounds for believing that they had probable cause to arrest and
prosecute a man for insurance fraud and making a false incident report arising
out of a dispute concerning the ownership of a cow. While a neighboring farmer
made accusations about the arrestee's actions, and said that he "had
heard" that the arrestee previously engaged in drowning sick cows to
collect insurance money, but the farmer presented no facts to substantiate his
accusations. The defendants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity
or dismissal of the arrestee's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims
against them. Simons v. Fitzgerald, No. 07-0773, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15782
(Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest celebrants
at a Hispanic festival for drinking alcohol in public and disorderly conduct,
based on undisputed evidence. Further proceedings were ordered on more specific
claims by individual arrestees. Montano v. City of Chicago, No. 06-2148, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 15826 (7th Cir.).
Motorist's statement that he had consumed
"one beer three hours ago" was sufficient to provide officers with
reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests, or entitle her to
qualified immunity for doing so. Qualified immunity was denied, however, on a
claim that the officers used excessive force in unduly tightening the
arrestee's handcuffs. Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces, No. 07-2148, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 16543 (10th Cir.).
Arresting officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting a woman for concealing her identity when she was asked
for identification, and the question of qualified immunity should not have been
submitted to the jury, since there were no disputed issues of fact on the issue
of whether the officer had probable cause to make an arrest. Keylon v. City of
Albuquerque, No. 07-2071, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16542 (10th Cir.).
Man who claimed that he was improperly arrested
on drug charges after he had agreed with the police department to act as a
confidential informant and participate in drug buys could not pursue his
federal civil rights lawsuit for damages when he failed to show that his
conviction had previously been reversed. Combs v. City of Dallas, No. 06-11416,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15866 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Police officer who saw a motorist commit a
traffic violation had probable cause to make an arrest for reckless driving and
did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights in doing so even if he lacked the
authority under Arkansas state law to make traffic arrests on the interstate
highway. Rose v. City of Mulberry, No. 07-1645 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14334 (8th
Cir.).
When police officers had probable cause to arrest
a motorist for not using an illuminated headlight after dark, their motive for
making the arrest were irrelevant and the arrest was lawful despite an alleged
First Amendment retaliation claim. There were, however, triable issues of fact
concerning the legality and circumstances of a subsequent strip search at the
police station. Scallion v. City of Hawthorne, No. 07-55144, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 12034 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court overturned summary
judgment in a false arrest lawsuit filed by a discharged probationary
firefighter arrested for shooting, but not killing, another firefighter. The
court found that some of the facts that the trial court relied on in finding
probable cause and granting summary judgment for the city and police detectives
were not actually known to the detectives at the time of the arrest, so that further
proceedings were required. Parsons v. City of Pontiac, No. 07-2299, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 13283 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest the
plaintiff because of a complainant's statements concerning an incident in which
he had allegedly physically attacked her, following which she ran to a
neighbor's hose and told an officer that she was too fearful to return to her
house. Maliha v. Faluotico, No. 07-1106, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13097 (Unpub. 2nd
Cir.).
Despite a police detective's mistake confusing
the name of the suspect sought, and whether a witness referred to
"Ann" or "Ang," he acted reasonably in arresting the
plaintiff for burglary. The plaintiff's last name was spelled almost the same
as the suspect sought, and he did not act in an intentional or reckless, or
plainly incompetent manner. Martel v. Town of South Windsor, No. 3:06-cv-1145,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 45931 (D. Conn.).
There were genuine issues of fact as to whether a
deputy and an arrestee's ex-husband had conspired to have her arrested for a
traffic violation, prior to which the ex-husband allegedly planted, or arranged
to have planted, an open bottle of wine and a bag of cocaine in her vehicle.
Drug charges resulting from the stop were subsequently dismissed. Because of
the factual issues about whether a conspiracy existed against the ex-wife,
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity could not be addressed on
appeal. Piers v. Vandenberg, No. 07-1744, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12865 (Unpub. 6th
Cir.).
When police officers, in the aggregate, had
knowledge of facts that would have warranted a prudent person to believe that a
woman had committed theft, an officer's actions in detaining her, whether it
constituted an investigative stop or an arrest, were justified. Morelli v.
Webster, No. 07-CV-89, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40475 (D. Maine).
When officers allegedly arrested the plaintiff as
a suspect in a robbery even though a witness to the crime made a negative
identification of him, no reasonable officer could have believed that there was
probable cause for the arrest if the facts were as the plaintiff claimed. A
police detective, however, did nothing other than hearing the negative
identification and then accurately convening it to the other officers, who made
the arrest, so the detective was entitled to qualified immunity. Pitt v. D.C.,
Civil Action No. 01-2225, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42737 (D.D.C.).
A sheriff's eyewitness testimony identifying the
arrestee as the man who sold him two bags of marijuana was sufficient to
provide probable cause for his arrest, despite discrepancies between the serial
number that the sheriff stated was on the $20 bill he paid with and the serial
number arresting officers testified to at trial, and the fact that the $20 bill
itself was never recovered. Fox v. Graff, No. 07-14720, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
11219 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Police detective developed probable cause to
arrest the plaintiff when, during the course of his investigation, he learned
facts from credible sources which gave him reasonable grounds to believe that
the suspect had willingly participated in fraudulent schemes. He had probable
cause under the totality of the known facts and circumstances. Cranmer v.
Tyconic, Inc., No. 06-16383, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10596 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
There was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether a police detective had probable cause to believe that a woman had
knowingly made a false incident report claiming that her ex-boyfriend had
called her from jail and left a message on her answering machine in violation
of an order of protection. The detective arrested her for falsifying a police
incident report concerning the identity and location of the caller, but
allegedly did not have information showing that she actually knew that her
former boyfriend was out of jail at the time. The detective was therefore not
entitled to summary judgment in a false arrest lawsuit. Brewton v. City of New
York, No. 05-CV-3574, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36455 (E.D.N.Y.).
When an arrestee had a "full and fair
opportunity" to challenge the question of whether there was probable cause
for his arrest at a preliminary hearing, he was barred from relitigating the
issue in his federal civil rights lawsuit. McIntosh v. Prestwich, No. 06-56868,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10148 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
man they found holding an iron bar while involved in a "heated,
expletive-filled" argument with another person also holding such a bar.
The officers were not required to wait until the two men actually came to blows
before arresting them. There was, however, a genuine issue of fact as to
whether the force used by the officers in twisting the arrestee's arms was
excessive, based on the arrestee's assertion that he did not attempt to evade
arrest or resist them. Zantello v. Shelby Township, No. 07-1640, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 10014 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A police officer had probable cause to arrest a
motorist in a speeding vehicle that looked like an official police car. While
charges of forging a license plate and impersonating an officer were later
dismissed by a state court judge, after giving the motorist a "stern
warning," this did not show that the arresting officer had violated the
motorist's constitutional rights under the circumstances. Burnett v. Kelley,
No. 07-1515, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9364 (6th Cir.).
Following an auto accident, a man pulled one of
the victims from her car, and carried her to the side of the road, attempting
to help her until emergency personnel arrived. An officer arrived, and was
talking to the other driver when the man saw the victim's eyes close, and saw
her stop moving. He allegedly yelled to the officer, "she needs f--ing
help!", and the officer ordered him to cease using profanity. The officer
ultimately handcuffed and arrested the man. The court ruled that the arrestee's
statements, even if "emphatic, coarse, and disrespectful," were not
obscene under Pennsylvania state law, since they were not an appeal to "prurient
interest." The officer, therefore, did not have probable cause to make an
arrest for disorderly conduct. Tate v. West Norriton Township, Civil No.
06-CV-4068, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25928 (E.D. Pa.).
Passenger in a vehicle arrested for refusal to
provide identification sufficiently alleged a violation of his Fourth Amendment
rights, because there was no showing that the passenger was required under
Arkansas law to provide identification. The officer's authority to
"request" information was insufficient to provide a basis for the
arrest. The vehicle had been stopped for failure to display a license plate,
and the driver, who was the passenger's grandson, did provide his own driver's
license, proof of insurance, and documents concerning the ownership of the
vehicle. Stufflebeam v. Harris, No. 06-4046, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7156 (8th
Cir.).
When officers have probable cause to
believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth
Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to
safeguard evidence and to ensure their own safety. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they made an arrest
that was based on probable cause but prohibited by Virginia state law, or when
they performed a search incident to the arrest. In this case, rather than
issuing a summons required by state law, the police arrested a motorist for the
misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license, and a search incident to the
arrest produced crack cocaine. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of
the Virginia Supreme Court finding that the search violated the Fourth
Amendment because the arresting officers should have issued a citation instead
of making an arrest. While the decision was made in the context of a criminal
prosecution, the same reasoning would apply in a federal civil rights lawsuit
seeking damages. Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082, 2008 U.S. Lexis 3674.
When the arrestee was at the scene of the crime,
and the crime victim, who had known him for more than four years, identified
him as the perpetrator, a detective had probable cause to make a warrantless
arrest. Teal v. San Diego County, No. 06-56509, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8338 (9th
Cir.).
A federal jury believed a parolee's claim that
officers had planted a semiautomatic rifle in his home for the purpose of
"framing" him, returning an award totaling more than $6 million to
the parolee and his girlfriend. The court found that the parole search which
uncovered the weapon was not based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion,
and that the jury was properly told to examine the officers' intent and motives
for the purpose of determining whether the suspicionless search was harassing
or arbitrary and capricious. On the basis of the record, the court could not
say that the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The court did, however, order a
new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs accepted a reduction of the
parolee's damages for emotional distress from $5 million to $3 million, his
lost wages from $8,000 to $1,800, and the girlfriend's award for emotional
distress from $750,000 to $300,000. Smith v. City of Oakland, No. C-05-4045,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20735 (N.D. Cal.).
Probable cause existed for the arrest of two gun
owners despite a federal statute, which allowed them, under some circumstances,
to transport their weapons interstate without criminal liability under local
gun laws. Even if officers were aware of the federal statute in question, they
could justifiably fail to accept one of the plaintiff's explanation at
"face value." The federal statute did not itself answer the question
of the legality of the plaintiffs' actions, but requires that officers confirm
a particular combination of facts, which officers are not required to accept
merely based on the word of a suspect. Torraco v. Port Authority of New York
& New Jersey, No. 05 Civ 5572, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21323 (E.D.N.Y.).
No reasonable police officer could believe that
there was probable cause to arrest a woman for obstructing his service of
process following her alleged assistance to him in pointing out the location of
the person he was trying to serve. Additionally, neither the officer nor the
woman believed that she had authority to authorize him to go into the hospital
room of the person he was trying to serve. Shipman v. Hamilton, No. 07-2098,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7665 (7th Cir.).
There was probable caused to arrest a motorist
when a student identified him as the man who had been her assailant in a kidnap
attempt. Peterson v. Crawford, No. 07-14795, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5245 (11th
Cir.).
Detectives could reasonably believe that a man
was a felon in possession of a firearm based on evidence of a prior felony
grand theft conviction and his admission on the phone that he currently
possessed firearms, as well a judicial issuance of a warrant to search his
house, and the discovery of three firearms on the premises. Gray v. City of Los
Angeles, No. 06-55512, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4240 (9th Cir.).
Officers acted reasonably in conducting a
pat-down search of a man observed in an alley who could not provide an address
for the residence he claimed to live in, particularly after they saw a bulge in
his sweatshirt. When he resisted the lawful pat-down search, the officers
developed probable cause to arrest him, and the forced used in doing so was not
excessive. Torres v. Purdy, No. 06-55820, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4232 (9th Cir.).
There was probable cause to arrest a man at a
temporary trauma center for victims of the September 11th 2001 terrorist
attacks in New York after a worker there repeatedly asked him to leave because
of his "very excited state" and his incoherent "rambling,"
and he refused to do so, which constituted trespassing. Warheit v. City of New
York, No. 06-4463, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7225 (2nd Cir.).
The question of whether a city, city officials,
and police officials acted with malice was not relevant to the issue as to
whether individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on claims
arising out of a woman's arrest and prosecution. A court's examination of the
entitlement to qualified immunity is limited to objective facts concerning
whether or not there was probable cause. In this case, qualified immunity was
proper because there was "at least arguable" probable cause to arrest
the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims, however, were sufficient to defeat
summary judgment for the city itself. The plaintiff claimed that the police had
a policy of "reflexively crediting" reports from neighbors with whom
she had a long standing conflict, creating a foreseeable risk of an arrest not
based on probable cause. Hilchey v. City of Haverhill, No. 05-10152, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 18515 (D. Mass.).
A police officer had probable cause to arrest a
man for interfering with his criminal investigation by repeatedly telling his
friend, the owner of a vehicle in which marijuana had been found, not to talk
to the officer. The arrestee acted in a disorderly manner, and allegedly
"spoke over" the officer's questions, interfering with the
investigation. The officer did not violate either the Fourth or First
Amendment, and the plaintiff's speech was not constitutionally protected.
Additionally, the officer gave him a warning to be quiet prior to arresting
him. The court also stated that, assuming that there was a constitutional
violation of free speech rights, it was not clearly established, so the officer
would still be entitled to qualified immunity. King v. Ambs, No. 06-2054 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 5899 (6th).
Even if a man was initially stopped from speaking
at a city council meeting because of the content of his speech, there were
grounds to remove him from the meeting and place him under arrest for trespass
when he charged the mayor because he was ruled out of order, and refused to
leave. The arrest did not violate his First Amendment rights, since there was a
compelling governmental interest in preserving order at the meeting. Kirkland
v. Luken, No. C-1-02-364, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17378 (S.D. Ohio).
Police had probable cause to arrest suspect on
drug charges on the basis of an anonymous tip that was detailed, and a
subsequent controlled buy of drugs, as well as other evidence. The claim that a
"lame" explanation was provided for a delay of several weeks between
the controlled buy and the arrest did not alter this result. Hernandez v. City
of Union City, No. 06-2367, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3031 (3rd Cir.).
Officers' warrantless arrest of a man was
sufficiently justified by the statements of two adult witnesses to his alleged
crime and their independent investigation, which indicated that these witnesses
appeared to be trustworthy. The officers, once they had probable cause, were
not constitutionally required to independently investigate the arrestee's claim
of innocence, and the arrestee did not show that the officers knew anything at
the time of his arrest that would have negated their belief that there was
probable cause. The seizure of his vehicle without a warrant was also
justified, as the officers believed that it would contain evidence concerning
an alleged kidnapping. Tensley v. City of Spokane, Washington, No. 06-35723,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3899 (9th Cir.).
Officer had probable cause to arrest teacher on
charges of allegedly molesting a female student. The officer could rely on the
student's accusations, along with his experience and special training in
dealing with child sexual abuse. Despite the fact that the prosecutor
subsequently declined to prosecute the case, the officer was entitled to
summary judgment. John v. City of El Monte, No. 05-56125, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
2509 (9th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to stop a
motorist who drove on a highway for a time with his hazard lights on, which
resulted in his subsequent arrest for drunk driving. Additionally, the arrestee
had no reasonable expectation of privacy during a call he made to his attorney
from the police station, since it was made in the presence of officers. The
recording of that conversation was therefore not an unconstitutional search.
Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, No. 06-4072, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
972 (8th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man for
alleged domestic violence against his girlfriend, based on her statements that
he had attacked her. He did not dispute that she had made the accusation or
that there were signs of a physical fight on her body. His claim that her
statements were false was insufficient to establish that the officers lacked
probable cause for the arrest. Hoskins v. City of Milwaukee, No. 06-3542, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 599 (7th Cir.).
No warrant was needed to arrest a woman's son for
elder abuse when he was arrested outside his front door, and there was probable
cause for the arrest. A retired police chief could not be held liable for
alleged civil rights violations since he was not personally involved in the
arrest, and could not be held liable merely because the arresting officers were
his underlings. The court also ruled that, under the circumstances, the mother
could not reasonably believed that she was also under arrest. Labankoff v. City
of Santa Rosa, No. 05-16408, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1744 (9th Cir.).
A man was arrested, and allegedly assaulted, by
an officer while he was purportedly trying to assist his brother in salvage
operations at a home which had caught on fire. He argued that he had been
compelled to plead guilty to harassment and disorderly conduct charges because
prosecutors failed to properly investigate the officer's charges against him,
and also failed to properly investigate his own criminal complaint against the
officer. The arrestee's claims for damages arising out of the arrest and
prosecution were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
because his conviction had not been set aside. Additionally, he had no
constitutional right to have prosecutors investigate his charges against the
officer, and prosecutors were entitled to prosecutorial immunity for their
actions in connection with prosecuting him. Fuchs v. Mercer County, No.
06-4473, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 547 (3rd Cir.).
Arresting officer was entitled to summary
judgment in false arrest lawsuit brought by motorist who pulled his vehicle
over to the side of the road, allegedly for the purposes of switching drivers,
and then was arrested for DUI when he failed a field sobriety test. While the
motorist was ultimately acquitted of all charges, the appeals court found that
a reasonable officer would have had probable cause, under the circumstances, to
make an arrest for obstructing a lane of traffic. Williams v. Rodriguez, No.
06-4126, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28201 (7th Cir.).
Officer had probable cause to arrest a man for
stalking based on emails back and forth between the arrestee and his alleged
victim, his multiple phone messages to her on the same day, the victim's
complaints about the phone calls and emails, and the arrestee's arrival at the
victim's residence after she had allegedly told him that she had no interest in
seeing him because he was a married man. The arrestee later pled no contest to
disorderly behavior and criminal trespass. Further proceedings were ordered,
however, as to the plaintiff's claims that his rights were violated by the
seizure of his business computer and CD-ROMs. Blake v. County of Livingston,
No. 06-1850, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29073 (6th Cir.).
Federal appeals court rejects claim that
fishermen were falsely arrested for trespass after refusing to leave waters on
usually dry private property. The court did not accept the arrestees' argument
that members of the public have a protected state and federal right to go
fishing on such property at times when it is flooded by the Mississippi River.
Parm v. Shumate, No. 06-31045 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29948 (5th Cir.).
In a case in which a police officer allegedly
made a warrantless in-home arrest of a woman for exposing herself, the officer
had probable cause to make an arrest, and was therefore entitled to qualified
immunity on a false arrest claim. Assuming, for the purposes of appeal, that
the arrestee had not voluntarily exposed herself to public view, the court
found that there were no exigent circumstances justifying an in-home
warrantless arrest, so that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity
on the claim that the in-home arrest was improper. Goodwin v. City of San
Bernardino, No. 05-56101, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28040 (9th Cir.).
Police officers who arrested tenant on the basis
of signed complaints from landlords had probable cause for the arrest, and were
properly granted qualified immunity. Prosecutors in the case were entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity, and landlords, who were private persons, did
not act under color of state law, so they could not be defendants in a federal
civil rights lawsuit. Fielding v. Tollaksen, No. 06-5393, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
28939 (2nd Cir.).
Police detective had probable cause to arrest a
man for alleged abduction of his child based on the mother's statement that the
child was not returned to her at a designated time following visitation, in
violation of a court order. The detective had obtained some corroboration of
the mother's accusation by determining that the arrestee had not taken the
child to school that morning. The incident actually took place because of
"poor communication" between the mother and father, and the arrestee
was not prosecuted. Munday v. Johnson, No. 07-3088, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28233
(10th Cir.).
Six Muslim Imams sued an airline and an airport
commission for alleged violations of their federal civil rights in having
airport commission police remove them from an airplane after boarding, and
arresting them and questioning them for several hours, after three of them had
allegedly prayed together at the gate prior to boarding. Their lawsuit also
claimed that the airline refused to rebook them after clearing them of any
wrongful actions. A federal trial court found that the plaintiffs adequately
asserted Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims, based on an alleged lack
of probable cause and alleged motivations of race and religion for their
arrest. The court rejected, however, a state law false arrest claim against the
airport commission, while finding that such a claim was possible against the
airline. The court further found that a viable claim was stated for
intentional, but not negligent, infliction of emotional distress against the
airline under Minnesota state law. The court rejected a claim by one of the
Imams, who is blind, for disability discrimination, ruling that the Air Carrier
Access Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41705, does not provide for private lawsuits for
such discrimination. Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., No. Civ. 07-1513,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85881 (D. Minn. 2007).
A police officer who allegedly arrested the plaintiff
for criticizing him for writing tickets, rather than for illegal parking, was
not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit over alleged violation of First
Amendment rights. The officer was writing parking tickets, and wrote one for
the plaintiff, who tried to explain he was only parking on the sidewalk
temporarily in front of his apartment building to unload, and that he was
handicapped, with a handicap parking permit. When the plaintiff stepped into
the building and warned his employees working at the apartment building that
they should move their vehicles because the officer was writing tickets, the
officer allegedly stated that he was "tired" of the plaintiff's
"mouth," so that the plaintiff was going to jail, grabbing him by the
arm and attempting to pull him out of the building. Other officers arrived on
the scene and told the officer to leave the plaintiff alone. Making an arrest
that was based entirely on an arrestee's speech opposing or questioning police
actions violates the First Amendment. Lowe v. Spears, No. 07-1497, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 29488 (4th Cir.).
Police officer had probable cause to arrest man
for passing out handbills containing advertisements for businesses as well as
statements in favor of the legalization of marijuana. While the arrestee had a
clear First Amendment right to advocate legalization of marijuana, this did not
give him any right to violate an anti-littering ordinance while doing so, and
many of his handbills were lying in the street. Lorenzo v. City of Tampa, No.
07-13420, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29381 (11th Cir.).
Officer had probable cause to arrest
motorist for driving under the influence when he was unable to stand on one
leg, and sat at a stop sign at 2:23 a.m. for 30 seconds. In the alternative,
the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for making the arrest. Jolley v.
Harvell, No. 06-5383, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26625 (6th Cir.).
When the arrestee admitted to consuming eight
beers that day, smelled of alcohol, failed a sobriety test, fell to the ground
after getting out of his car, and was observed sitting in a car perched on top
of a concrete parking divider with the engine running, the officer had probable
cause to arrest him for drunk driving. Once probable cause was established, the
officer had no obligation to continue to investigate to find exculpatory
evidence. Biehl v. Salina Police Department, No. 07-3231, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
27573 (10th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds award of nominal
damages and injunctive relief concerning the future training of officers in a
case where officers ended a 12-hour standoff with an armed man in his apartment
by tossing in gas canisters and then entering without a warrant to arrest him.
Police had been called to the scene after the man had been found by a security
guard drinking beer, unresponsive, and holding one of his guns in his
apartment. During the 12-hour standoff, the suspect threatened to shoot a
police tactical negotiator. The court found that the officers had ample time
during the standoff to seek an arrest warrant, but never asked for one.
Additionally, towards the end of the standoff, nothing occurred that increased
the danger of the situation, since the suspect engaged in no further
threatening actions. Fisher v. City of San Jose, No. 04-16095, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 26796 (9th Cir.).
Arrestee's lawsuit claiming that her custodial
arrest for issuing a forged check was improper consisted to 30 pages of
"rambling and incomprehensible" allegations written in phrases rather
than sentences, and containing no punctuation. The failure to give any factual
details at all to support her claims resulted in a failure to state any viable
civil rights claims. Hagner v. State of Florida, Case No. 6:07-cv-917, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 77032 (M.D. Fla.).
Probable caused existed to arrest a man when he
tried to physically move his ex-wife away from a car during an argument that
occurred when he went to pick up his son. Spalsbury v. Sisson, No. 06-1193,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21838 (10th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to carry out a
warrantless arrest of a woman for assaulting her daughter, based on the
daughter's own statements, the physical evidence, and the history of violence
in the family. Willette v. City of Waterville, Civil No. 06-101, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 76968 (D. Maine).
It was objectively unreasonable for arresting
officers to believe that a man was impersonating a member of the highway patrol
with the intent to deceive when he was in a restaurant on Halloween wearing
flamboyant pink underwear with written references to the county sheriff and
public safety patches while campaigning for a ballot proposition in an upcoming
election. He was not wearing a badge at the time, and it was obvious that he
was only "lampooning" the sheriff and engaging in First-Amendment
protected free speech. Arresting officers were therefore not entitled to
qualified immunity for arresting him. Tarr v. Maricopa County, No. 05-16676,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27169 (9th Cir.).
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
motorist for DUI based on her "unusual and likely unlawful driving,"
the odor of alcohol on her breath, and her failed performance on field sobriety
tests, despite the fact that the charges were later dropped when her blood
alcohol level measured at below the legal limit. Ryder v. Pucillo, Civil Action
No. 3-06-cv-391, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78202 (D. Conn.).
Probable cause existed for the arrest of a man in
small claims court. Witnesses testified that the arrestee was in a "highly
agitated" state, made physical contact with a woman who was attempting to
re-enter the line to see the court clerk, and refused to cooperate with
security personnel at the court. Norasteh v. New York, No. 1864 107989, 2007
N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 10949 (1st Dept.).
After a charge against an arrestee for
interfering with police authority was dismissed, she sued for false arrest. The
trial court dismissed some claims and a jury returned verdicts for the officers
on remaining claims. A federal appeals court rejected the argument that the
trial court was "bound" by the dismissal of the criminal charges
against her by the state court. The appeals court further noted that the
officer was not a party to the criminal prosecution. The trial court's decision
and the jury verdicts were upheld. Barton v. City and County of Denver, No.
06-1536, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24940 (10th Cir.).
Police officers acted reasonably in arresting a
woman without a warrant for assaulting her daughter, based on physical
evidence, the daughter's statements, and the history of violence in the family.
The plaintiff also failed to state her own version of the facts in her response
to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, merely denying their statement
of the facts. Willette v. City of Waterville, Civil No. 06-101, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 76968 (D. Maine).
Officers had probable cause to arrest suspects as
alleged accomplices in the armed robbery at a restaurant based on eyewitness
identifications at a line-up and a pager number provided by one of the
eyewitnesses. The fact that the arrestees were later acquitted of all charges
did not alter the fact that there was probable cause for the arrests. Peet v.
City of Detroit, No.05-1371, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22693 (6th Cir.).
Reversing judgment as a matter of law for an
officer in an excessive force lawsuit, a federal appeals court ruled that a
jury could have concluded that the level of force used was excessive. The
officer allegedly applied a pain compliance control hold on the arrestee, shoved
her outside, and slammed her against a car when she was calm, sober, an
compliant. The trial court did, however, correctly rule that the officer had
probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for battery when she touched his badge.
McIntyre v. City of San Jose, No. 05-17005, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25606 (9th
Cir.).
Motorist who was detained for allegedly producing
a counterfeit driver's license, but who was released when the authenticity of
the license was verified was properly awarded only $400 in damages by a jury in
his federal civil rights lawsuit. While the plaintiff was in custody for two to
three hours, he was never placed under arrest, and presented no medical
evidence of injury. His sole evidence of damages was his wife's testimony that
he was humiliated in the community by these events. Under these circumstances,
the jury acted reasonably in only awarding him nominal damages, and he was not
entitled to a new trial or to an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1988. Chen v. City of New York, #28331/02, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 7145 (Sup.
Court. Queens County).
A federal trial court acted erroneously in
deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law in a false arrest lawsuit in
favor of the defendants when it first made factual findings against the
plaintiff, instead of viewing the evidence, for purposes of the motion, in the
most favorable light to his version of the arrest. Further proceedings were
therefore required. The case involved the arrest of a protester who allegedly
intentionally blocked a truck as it attempted to enter a construction site.
Zellner v. Summerlin, No. 05-6309, 494 F.3d 344 (2nd Cir. 2007).
Woman arrested at airport during a money
laundering sting operation, which involved a passenger on a private plane she co-piloted,
failed to show that her arrest was made without probable cause. Arresting
officers need not have personal knowledge of the facts that established
probable cause, and probable cause can be based on the collective knowledge of
the officers involved in the operation. Willis v. Neal, No. 06-5695, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 21868 (6th Cir.).
Officers summoned to a store because of
suspicions that a $100 bill presented by a customer was counterfeit were not
certain whether it was or not, and decided to call the U.S. Secret Service for
an expert opinion. The officers still placed the customer under arrest,
however, on a federal currency violation, purportedly because they thought that
the investigation would proceed in the easiest manner if the suspect was at the
police station. The bill subsequently was determined to be genuine. Under these
circumstances, a federal appeals court ruled, the officers lacked probable
cause to believe that the arrestee had committed a crime, so they were not
entitled to qualified immunity. Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco,
No. 05-15522, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20689 (9th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man
observed receiving something in a hand-to-hand transaction in a high drug crime
area, who then held his right hand in a cupped manner believed to be for the
purpose of concealing an item. The arrestee also placed his hand to his mouth
when he saw the deputies approaching, and then refused an order to open his
mouth, and appeared to be trying to chew something. Rock cocaine was found when
the suspect obeyed an order to spit out the item. The court rejected the
argument that the arrest lacked probable cause or that the officers engaged in
racial profiling. The mere fact that the charges were subsequently dropped as
part of a plea bargain did not alter the fact that the arrest was proper.
Dampier v. Donagliaf, No. C05-1954, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56404 (W.D. Wash.).
Investigating police officer had probable cause
to arrest female schoolteacher for alleged sexual molestation of a ten-year-old
female student, based on the student's statements during an interview and notes
that the student had passed to a fellow student. John v. City of El Monte, No.
05-56125, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22738 (9th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
woman for attempting to fill a fraudulent prescription when there was no
dispute that a pharmacist told them that her doctor's office denied writing the
prescription that she presented at the store, even if there was a factual
dispute as to whether the officers were told that the doctor had said that the
prescription was "forged." O'Brien v. City of Tacoma, No. 05-35917,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19592 (9th Cir.).
False arrest claim could not be dismissed against
officers when a reasonable jury could believe the arrestee's version of
events--that he did not engage in a narcotics transaction, was not in
possession of marijuana, and did not resist arrest and attempt to flee the
officers, because they did not identify themselves as police officers, so that
he thought he was being arrested by strangers. A reasonable jury also could
believe that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest, but gave
false information to an officer who then prepared a complaint. The officer who
prepared the complaint, however, was entitled to summary judgment because he
reasonably relied on the information provided by the other officers. The court
granted summary judgment, however, on the arrestee's excessive force claims because
of the arrestee's "de minimis" (minimal) injuries. Williams v.
City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 10230, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55654 (S.D.N.Y.).
Sheriff's deputies, police officer, and probation
officer were all entitled to qualified immunity for their roles in the arrest
of a man and the search of his vehicle on suspicion of involvement in
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, despite the
suppression, in the criminal prosecution, of the evidence found during the
search and the dismissal of the charges against him. The probation officer did
not violate any clearly-established constitutional right by providing
information to a sheriff's deputy after he learned that drugs were being sold
at a specific residence, and in listening, along with the deputy, to a phone
conversation in which it was indicated that the drugs would be delivered to
that home in a green Ford pick-up truck. The court found that there was
probable cause for the arrest and vehicle search. Scallion v. Norman, No.
07-30257, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19396 (5th Cir.).
There were genuine issues of fact as to whether a
town marshal had probable cause to arrest the owners of a van for theft or
criminal conversion when they attempted to retrieve the van from a lot where it
had been towed after breaking down, and following a state trooper's arrest of
the driver for failure to have a driver's license. The town marshal allegedly
threatened them with arrest if they did not sign over title to the van. Belcher
v. Norton, No. 06-3174, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19344 (7th Cir.).
Officers had probable cause to arrest a motorist
for public intoxication, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. The appeals
court orders further proceedings, however, as to whether the arrestee's rights
were violated by drawing his blood for a blood test, since there were disputed
issues of fact as to whether he consented to the blood test, whether a breath
or urine test was available, and whether he was offered or refused such
alternate tests. Watson v. County of Los Angeles, No. 04-57137, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 18857 (9th Cir.).
When two individuals believed to be involved in a
crime identified the suspect as having been in the car with them and being
involved in the shooting of the victim, officers had probable cause to arrest
him, based on those statements, and the statements of other witnesses placing
the suspect in particular locations. Additionally five officers named as
defendants did not play any part in the decision to make the arrest, and
therefore were entitled to summary judgment on that basis. Johnson v. Ford, No.
3:04CV116, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52553 (D. Conn.).
A jury awarded a flower vendor damages totaling
$73,000 on claims for false arrest and imprisonment, including non-economic
damages of $50,000 for pain and suffering in connection with the two nights the
plaintiff was in jail, $3,000 for six arrests in which he was told to appear in
court and did not suffer incarceration, $10,000 for past economic damages, and
$10,000 for future economic damages. On appeal, the court found that there was
no evidence produced from which the jury could have concluded that the
plaintiff's future earnings had been impaired, and, in fact, the available
evidence showed that his earnings increased after the arrests, so that the
$10,000 awarded for future economic damages was reversed. Miami-Dade County vs.
Cardoso, No. 3D06-2118, 2007 Fla. App. Lexis 12257 (3rd Dist.).
Even if traffic rule violations are "civil
in nature" under California state law, this did not render officers'
actions in stopping a vehicle and arresting the "belligerent" driver
who refused to produce his driver's license. The federal appeals court rejected
the argument that traffic offenses were "decriminalized" under state
law, but found that even if they had been, this would not somehow transform the
officers' actions into a Fourth Amendment violation. Officers have discretion
to make custodial arrests under California law for failure to present a
driver's license after operating a vehicle. Trotter v. Stonich, No. 05-56320,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19954 (9th Cir.).
Officers did not have probable cause, as a matter
of law, to arrest a man for trespassing in the gated area of a cooperative
building under any statute identified by either the officers or the city, so
that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on his false arrest claim. The
plaintiff claimed that he had merely entered to wait for a friend who was a
resident on the property, and there was no evidence that he was attempting to
enter a dwelling unit or otherwise engage in unlawful conduct on the property.
The jury, under the facts presented, could also find that officers had
conducted an unreasonable search of the plaintiff, including a strip search,
when the arrest, found to be unjustified, was only for a minor offense, and
there was no reason to believe he had contraband or a weapon. The officers were
not entitled to qualified immunity, and the federal trial court's dismissal of
state law claims in the case was erroneous, as was summary judgment on a claim
against the city for an alleged unlawful policy or custom, based on evidence
that police training concerning the circumstances of the arrest led an officer
to believe that presence on a property in the manner that the plaintiff had
been found, even for five to ten minutes, could be sufficient for an arrest.
Edgerly v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 05-15080, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 16949(9th Cir.).
Sheriff's deputies who arrested a man during a
public town hall meeting, based on their belief that his presence there
violated a protective order against harassment obtained by a married couple who
were also in attendance, were entitled to qualified immunity from his false
arrest claim. The arrestee had arrived at the meeting prior to the couple, was
present because of an item on the agenda relevant to himself and his family,
and had not followed the couple there in order to harass them, since they had
arrived after him. Despite this, the deputies did not act unreasonably in
believing that they had probable cause to arrest him based on the language of
the protective order. Wagner v. Washington County, No. 06-2045 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 16586 (7th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest
tenant locked out of rented home after allegedly failing to pay rent Officers
found, when they came to the home in response to a phone call from a neighbor,
that the tenant had broken a window and entered the home, and reasonably
believed that he was engaged in a burglary. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls,
No. 06-3357, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17896 (6th Cir.).
Officers did not violate a woman's free speech
rights by removing her from a county office where she voiced her opposition to
a new county payroll tax and stated that a county official was a "lying
son of a bitch," since the office was not dedicated as a "public
forum." An arresting officer had probable cause to take her into custody
for disrupting the office and refusing to leave when asked to do so. She had
announced that she was going to remain there, moving in and refusing to leave
until she got her "$70 back." The restrictions on her speech were
content-neutral and reasonable, and based on her interference with the
functioning of the office. Helms v. Zubaty, No. 06-6360 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
17156 (6th Cir.).
The arrestee's appearance and behavior at a bar
was sufficient to provide officers with probable cause to arrest him for public
intoxication. The arrestee also failed to present a viable claim for excessive
use of force by the officers, especially in light of the fact that he admitted
going limp and dropping to the ground when they attempted to arrest him. There
was no evidence that the officers acted intentionally in allegedly hitting his
head against the door of the police van while placing him in it, or that this
caused him any injury. Jackson v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, No. 06-2134, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 13670 (3rd Cir.).
The arresting officer could reasonably decide,
based on a motorist's refusal to take a field sobriety test, along with several
symptoms of "severe" alcohol consumption that he had probable caused
to make an arrest for driving under the influence. Wilder v. Turner, No.
06-1092, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2007 U.S. 13728 (10th Cir.).
Police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff
twice--once for making threatening calls to his ex-girlfriend, based on her
statements concerning those calls, and subsequently for violating a protective
order entered as a result of those calls, based on credible information that
the officer received through his supervisor that the plaintiff had, in fact,
violated the protective order. Reynolds v. Jamison, No. 06-2170, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 13373 (7th Cir.).
No reasonable jury could find that officers lacked
probable cause to arrest the plaintiff after they observed a suspect make
several drug sales before and after meeting with the arrestee, based on
information they had received from a confidential informant that the suspect
was selling the drugs for a third party. O'Connor v. City of Philadelphia, No.
06-3029, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11291 (3rd Cir.).
A police officer had probable cause to arrest a
man for petit larceny based on statements from a security guard that he had
seen him conceal some earmuffs in his jacket pocket. The officer had no basis
to disbelieve the security guard's statement. Federal civil rights claims
against the security guard were properly dismissed, as he did not act under
color of state law. Prowisor v. Bon-Ton, Inc., No. 06-2213, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 9661 (2nd Cir.).
An arrestee's false arrest claim did not accrue
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 until the prosecution terminated in his favor, so
that his lawsuit, filed one year after that was not barred by a statute of
limitations. Mapes v. Bishop, No. 06-30559, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14123 (5th
Cir.).
Business owner adequately alleged in his lawsuit
that the mayor and city had knowingly authorized police officers to arrest him
without probable cause on a charge of operating a business without a license.
Lamon v. Sandidge, No. 06-4149, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11196 (7th Cir.).
Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop van
leaving closed construction company premises late at night when he knew it had
previously been burglarized and had never seen a van leaving there so late at
night when it was closed. Once stopped, the officer developed probable cause to
arrest, detain, and prosecute the van occupants based on the evidence found.
Murphy v. Bendig, No. 06-4307, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9920 (3rd Cir.).
While a Washington state statute barred a
warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense unless an officer observed the
crime being committed, the violation of that statute by arresting the plaintiff
for second-degree trespass in being present on railroad tracks did not violate
his constitutional rights. The officers acted upon reliable information
concerning a man having been seen sitting or lying upon the tracks, and then
found the plaintiff in the general area, where he appeared to be intoxicated.
The officers were therefore entitled to summary judgment on a federal civil
rights false arrest claim. Hall v. Hughes, No. 05-35658, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
12052 (9th Cir.).
While a deputy violated an arrestee's Fourth
Amendment rights by pulling him from the doorway of his home to make a
warrantless arrest, he was entitled to qualified immunity because of
conflicting U.S. Supreme Court cases, one stating that a warrantless arrest
could not be made, without exigent circumstances, by crossing the threshold of
a home, Payton v. New York, No. 78-5420, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and the other,
United States v. Santana, No. 75-19, 427 U.S. 38 (1976), in which a warrantless
arrest occurring in a doorway was upheld. "No Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit,
or Supreme Court of Florida cases have resolved the question whether Payton or
Santana applies to the arrest of a person who, while standing firmly inside the
house, opens the door in response to a knock from the police and is then pulled
outside the unambiguous physical dimensions of the home." McClish v.
Nugent, No. 06-11826, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8294 (11th Cir.).
Arrestee failed to show that the officers'
alleged failure to recognize his medical condition and that he had not been
drinking or using drugs was anything more than negligent, which was
insufficient for a federal civil rights claim, or that the officers' alleged
misconduct was caused by a municipal policy or custom, as required for a claim
against the city. Williams v. City of Amory, Mississippi, No. 06-60705, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 7956 (5th Cir.).
Arresting a man for violation of a restraining
order of which he was allegedly unaware was not unlawful, so that federal civil
rights claims were dismissed. Black v. District of Columbia, No. 1:06-1041,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21791 (D.D.C.).
An officer did not "seize" a man at a
state fair by writing him a criminal citation for resisting, evading or
obstructing an officer following a verbal altercation and threatening that he
would be arrested and taken to jail if he did not sign it. The fact that the
plaintiff could have been arrested had he failed to sign the citation did not
convert the issuance of the citation into an arrest. Martinez v. Carr, No.
06-2069, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7074 (10th Cir.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on married couple's claim that they did not have probable cause to arrest both
of them for domestic battery charges. The arrestees claimed that the wife had
mistakenly called 911 and that they had both explained to the officers that
they had merely been "play fighting" with each other, while the
officers claimed that the couple had both stated that the other had injured
them. This dispute of material fact made summary judgment inappropriate. Washington
v. Haupert, No. 05-4225, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7129 (7th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
man for trespass for walking near a private railroad track, so that their
pat-down search of him, which found a small crack pipe in his pocket, could be
justified as a search incident to arrest, and the plaintiff could not prevail
on his claim that they had no probable cause to arrest him for possession of
drug paraphernalia. Duncan v. Fapso, No. 06-1744, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3632
(7th Cir.).
Township and officers who arrested suspected
shoplifter could not be held liable for false arrest when any error in a
mistaken identification of the arrestee as the offender was the fault of store
employees. Boykin v. Van Buren Township Police Dep't, No. 06-1359, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 5830 (6th Cir.).
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
motorist for driving with a suspended driver's license, based on a computer
check, regardless of whether or not the information was accurate. Gargano v.
Belmont Police Dept., No. 06-11687, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16547 (D. Mass.).
Police detective had probable cause to arrest
suspect for arson of a business, based on an eyewitness statement placing him
there, a fire marshal's conclusion that the fire had been arson, the fact that
the suspect had the skill needed to commit the crime, and also had a motive to
do so since he had been fired by the business the day before, as well as the
results of a polygraph examination of the suspect. Reed v. City of Chino, No.
05-55104, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5856 (9th Cir.).
Despite arrestee's subsequent acquittal on
charges of molesting his seven-year-old daughter, the arresting officer had
probable cause for the arrest, based on an investigation conducted following an
anonymous tip, which included information about the daughter's comments to a
friend, and the child's own confirmation of the allegations during an
interview. Ditsler v. Hernandez, No. 05-55579, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6478 (9th
Cir.).
Police detective had probable cause to arrest man
for violating an order of protection, based on a complaint by the victim
indicating a violation, a copy of the protective order, and a discussion the
detective had with the prosecutor's office concerning the protective order
before placing the suspect under arrest. Morales v. City of N.Y., No. 05-4992,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31484 (2nd Cir.).
City and police officials were immune under
California state law from defamation claims asserted by high school basketball
coach detained on the basis of an accusation that he had sexually molested a
former team member. Under a state statute they were immune on defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for statements made in the
course of a criminal investigation, whether those statements were reasonable or
malicious. There was, however, no similar immunity on false arrest claims, and
there was no probable cause for the coach's arrest since the accusations
against him lacked sufficient indications of reliability. Gillan v. City of San
Marino, No. B182979, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 222 (2d Dist.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on claims that they violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting a man who stood
in the doorway of his residence and declined to consent to their entry. The
officers then had a search warrant for another person but did not have a
reasonable belief that the person named in the search warrant was present
inside the home. Villegas v. Hackett, No. 05-55311, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6945
(9th Cir.).
Police officer who observed a man holding a beer
can at a public festival, and also saw the man place the can on the ground and
attempt to move away when the officer approached, as well as smelling alcohol
when speaking with him had probable cause to make an arrest. Bresette v.
Krewson, No.06-C-280-C, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11792 (W.D. Wis.).[N/R]
A man found inside a house by the homeowner and a
police officer was not entitled to damages for false arrest, as the officer
reasonably believed that he had committed a crime and was an intruder. Buxton
v. Nolte, No. 3:05-cv-212, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11464 (S.D. Ohio).[N/R]
Officers who pursued motorist with their flashing
lights and sirens activated had probable cause under Kentucky law for fleeing
when he failed to pull over and stop his vehicle. The officers began the
pursuit because the motorist unlawfully did not have illumination over his
license plate. Nelson v. Riddle, No. 06-5570, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3592 (6th
Cir.).[N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest a
university building services worker for "criminal menacing" under
Ohio law based on a call from a co-worker who reported that the arrestee had
threatened him. The co-worker reported that the arrestee had stated that he
should "knock the f**k out of" him, and that the arrestee's manager
also expressed fear that the arrestee would hurt his co-worker. The fact that
the officers did not interview the suspect before arresting him did not alter
the result. Franklin v. Miami University, No. 05-4445, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 693
(6th Cir.).[N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute of
limitations on a federal civil rights claim for false arrest which results in a
criminal prosecution starts to run on the date the arrestee is detained.
Wallace v. Kato, No. 05-1240, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007).[N/R]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
husband for allegedly striking his daughter above her eye, based on a report by
his wife. Crosset v. Marquette, No. C-060148, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 508 (1st
Dist.).[N/R]
Police officers who arrested a man for disorderly
conduct after he engaged in an altercation with them were entitled to summary
judgment in his false arrest lawsuit. Probable cause existed for the arrest,
despite the fact that the charges against him were later dismissed. Whyte v.
City of Yonkers, No. 2005-09979 (Index No. 11316/03), 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis
727 (2nd Dept.). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to make a warrantless
arrest of a woman for violating a municipal noise ordinance on the basis of a
neighbor's complaint and the officer's own observation. Morales v. Taveras, No.
05-4032, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4081 (E.D. Pa.). [N/R]
A suspect's warrantless arrest when he came out
of his residence after a 12-hour standoff between him and officers violated the
Fourth Amendment since there was sufficient time after probable cause for an
arrest was found to obtain a warrant. The defendants failed to show that there
were exigent circumstances to justify several warrantless entries into the
apartment that ultimately resulted in the seizure of the arrestee. Nominal
damages of $1 were awarded against city, along with injunctive relief
concerning the training of city officers. Fisher v. City of San Jose, No.
04-16095, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 860 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
Deputies who went to a man's house to question
him about a burglary had probable cause to arrest him after he "became
belligerent," resulting in a struggle, and bit a deputy's arm while
resisting being restrained. His actions gave them probable cause for an arrest
for battery and resisting arrest, regardless of whether or not they had a basis
to arrest him for burglary. Given that there was evidence that the arrestee had
been drinking and using cocaine before the deputies arrived, they did not use
excessive force in attempting to restrain him. Hawthorne v. Sheriff of Broward
County, No. 06-11094, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
An officer could not reasonably have believed
that he had probable cause to arrest someone at a public township board meeting
simply for the mild profanity of saying "God damn" while speaking to
the board. The First Amendment protected this expression by the husband of an
owner of a towing company complaining about the fact that the police chief had
stopped using that company as the municipality's towing company. Leonard v.
Robinson, No. 05-1728, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2275 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a woman for
attempted burglary of her ex-girlfriend's home, based on the ex-girlfriend's
phone call to 911, her statement to the officer that the arrestee had attempted
to break into the residence, and physical damage visible on the door. Williams
v. City of Homestead, Florida, No. 06-11092, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27231 (11th
Cir.). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a nightclub
owner for allegedly interfering with efforts to shut down the club and disperse
the crowd of patrons after a disturbance which included several fights in and
around the club, including gunfire. Freeman v. Town of Eatonville, Florida, No.
05-12813, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27120 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on false arrest claims of bar patrons they arrested in response to another
patron's fictitious story that he had been robbed in the bar's bathroom when
they placed the plaintiffs under arrest without first asking the complaining
patron to identify them as the supposed robbers. While they ultimately spoke to
the complaining patron, and released the arrestees after finding that they did
not match the description of the non-existent robbers, a reasonable jury could
find that the detention lasted longer than necessary as an "investigatory
stop," and that there was no probable cause for an arrest at the time.
Jernigan v. City of Royal Oak, No. 05-2245, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27279 (6th
Cir.). [N/R]
Despite disputes over whether the plaintiff had
told officers that someone pointed a gun at her or "held up a shiny object
toward her" which she believed might have been a gun, a reasonable jury
would have to find that the plaintiff had reported a crime, so that the
officers had probable cause to arrest her for filing a false report after they
determined that the incident did not occur. Porter v. City of Auburn, No.
05-35041, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27474 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
In the absence of any showing that a police
department had a custom of indifference to or acceptance of the violation of
individuals' rights, it could not be held liable for the alleged false arrest
of a customer of a cell phone store detained by security guards at the business
on an accusation that he was attempting to have a stolen cell phone activated
and was "trespassing." The security guards were also found not to be
acting under color of state law in transporting the arrestee to the police
station, but rather under a merchant's right under Michigan state law to
control access to their business. Durante v. Fairlane Town Center, No. 05-1113,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26128 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Man allegedly arrested for creating a public
disturbance and beaten by officers when he was actually having an epileptic
seizure failed to present any evidence of a policy or custom of the city which
allegedly caused these actions, or that the city's training of or supervision
of officers demonstrated deliberate indifference to his rights. Adams v. City
of Camden, No. 05-779, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82471 (D.N.J.). [N/R]
Undisputed facts showed that officers had a
reasonable basis to stop a motorist for traffic violations, and then had
probable cause for his arrest because he assaulted them and then attempted to
escape. Jackson v. City of Joliet, No. 06-2065, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
25867 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
Arrestee could not establish a claim for false
imprisonment when he head-butted the officer during the incident, providing
probable cause for his arrest for harassment in the second degree. Lynn v. New
York, No. 2004-11048 (Claim No. 107316), 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 12285 (A.D.
2nd Dept.). [N/R]
There was probable cause to arrest man who
allegedly offered money for oral sex to female officer pretending to be a
prostitute as part of a "reverse sting" operation. An actual exchange
of money was not required for such an arrest. Lans v. Stuckey, 05-16538, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 26118 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Arresting officer reasonably relied on
information from fellow officer in arresting reporter accompanying
demonstrators surrounding a trade summit in Miami, Florida. She was with a
group of demonstrators matching the description of people who had been throwing
rocks. The reporter herself did not know what the group of protestors had been
doing right before she joined them for the purpose of interviewing them. The
fact that the charges were later dropped against the reporter did not alter the
determination that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for initially
arresting her. Delgado v. Miami-Dade County, No. 05-23061, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 77572 (S.D. Fla.). [N/R]
Officers who arrested a man who, at the time, was
only standing 200 to 350 feet away from his former marital residence and wife
failed to show that they had probable cause to arrest him for violation of an
order of protection. Inadmissible hearsay statements attributed to the former
wife and an unsigned arrest report were insufficient to establish an
affirmative defense of probable cause in the arrestee's false arrest/false
imprisonment lawsuit under New York state law. Rakidjian v. County of Suffolk,
814 N.Y.S.2d 248 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Standing alone, a store employee's refusal to
identify himself to officers seeking to determine whether he was a narcotics
suspect was not sufficient to support probable cause for an arrest for
obstruction of governmental administration under New York state law. Williams
v. City of Mount Vernon, No. 05 Civ. 8052, 428 F. Supp. 2d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
[N/R]
Officer did not have probable cause to arrest a
village council member for disorderly conduct one month after they had a
conversation about the member moving his vehicle. The arrestee's comments did
not amount to fighting words, so an arrest on the sole basis of the
conversation violated his First Amendment rights. Kinkus v. Village of
Yorkville, No. C2-05-930, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70451 (S.D. Ohio). [N/R]
Police officer and store employees were not
liable for placing store customer under arrest for retail theft. The defendants
had probable cause to suspect her of possible shoplifting on the basis of their
observations. The fact that the arrestee was subsequently acquitted of the
charges did not alter the result. Karkut v. Target, No. 04-3396, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 71909 (E.D. Pa.).[N/R]
Even if arrest of a man at closed strip mall for
loitering and "prowling" was invalid, the arrest itself was
ultimately valid since facts then known to the arresting officer, including
weapons related items in the arrestee's possession would have provided an
alternative basis for the arrest. Nicol v. State of Florida, No. 5D05-2607,
2006 Fla. App. Lexis 17011 (5th Dist.).[N/R]
Officers who claimed that they relied on their
commander for a determination that they had probable cause to arrest protesters
were not entitled to qualified immunity when they observed the same events and
actions by the protesters that their commander had. Under those circumstances,
their reliance on the commander for a determination of probable cause would be
unreasonable. Killmon v. City of Miami, No. 06-11208, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
24523 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Off-duty police officer, in full uniform, acted
under color of law while acting as a security guard at a ballpark, and placing
patron under arrest after he refused to cease heckling one of the ball players.
Trial court improperly granted qualified immunity to officer, and there were
factual issues as to whether he had probable grounds for an arrest, whether the
arrest violated the arrestee's free speech rights, and whether the officer used
excessive force in ejecting him from the stadium. Swiecicki v. Delgado, No.
05-4036, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 23454 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Nov]
Officer had probable cause to arrest store
customer for shoplifting after two store security guards both stated that they
had individually seen the customer conceal merchandise in the store, and when
one of them swore out a criminal complaint. Prowisor v. Bon-Ton, Inc., No. 05
Civ. 0166, 426 F. Supp. 2d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Police officer who allegedly filed a false report
resulting in a false arrest could be held liable even if he did not himself
carry out the arrest. Additionally, officer's alleged earlier punch to
arrestee's face, which immobilized him, could constitute a seizure for purposes
of the Fourth Amendment. Acevedo v. Canterbury, No. 04-4292, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 20492 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]
Officer did not seize a motorist simply by
parking behind him in motel parking lot after allegedly observing erratic
driving, and only detained him after having reason to do so because he smelled
alcohol when the vehicle window was opened. Summary judgment for officer and
city was proper in motorist's false arrest lawsuit. Miller v. Harget, No.
05-13573, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19887 (11th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]
Officers did not violate an arrestee's Fourth
Amendment rights when they searched and arrested him, having seen, in plain
view, that he was in possession of an unlawful switchblade. Fox v. Michigan
State Police Depart., No. 04-2078, 173 Fed. Appx. 372 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest certain
shopping mall patrons on suspicion of passing counterfeit currency when they
had been trained in detecting counterfeits and the bills at issue appeared to
be printed off center and had other questionable features, despite the fact
that the bills were later determined to be genuine. Adams v. Carlisle, No.
A05A1836, 630 S.E.2d 529 (Ga. App. 2006). [N/R]
A man arrested for extortion for allegedly taking
money from a police officer in exchange for getting his girlfriend to drop
charges of rape against the officer's friend could not base a federal civil
rights lawsuit for false arrest on an "entrapment" argument.
"Entrapment is a defense in a criminal matter, but it does not exist as a
civil cause of action," and is not a "constitutional offense."
Dawkins v. Williams, No. 1:04-cV-0398, 413 F. Supp. 2d 161 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
[N/R]
Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity on
claim that he improperly ordered a deputy to arrest a truck driver for
"careless driving" after he drove a loaded 18-wheel truck over a
bridge which collapsed. At the time of the accident, a weight limit sign
ordinarily posted there had fallen down. Robinson v. White County, No. 05-3362,
452 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Sep]
Arrestee could not pursue federal civil rights
claims such as false arrest and unreasonable search and seizure which, if
successful, would call into question the validity of his criminal conviction,
which had not been set aside, under the rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). Fernandez v. Alexander, No. 3:01CV1807, 419 F. Supp. 2d 128
(D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
Arrestee could pursue his complaint of excessive
use of force, since it included both the basic facts of what occurred and the
claim that this constituted unreasonable action under the Fourth Amendment, but
his false arrest and false imprisonment claims were barred by his conviction of
a criminal charge against him arising out of his arrest. Lynn v. Schertzberg,
No. 05-1857, 169 Fed. Appx. 666 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Los Angeles police detectives had probable cause
to arrest man twice on charges arising out of suspected theft of Oscar
statuettes intended to be presented at the Academy awards. Hart v. Parks, No.
04-55553, 04-55555, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 14934 (9th Cir.). [2006 LR Aug]
Sheriff's deputy did not have probable cause to
arrest a man for disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice if all he did
was yell from a distance while the deputy was carrying out a traffic stop near
his home. Davis v. Williams, No. 05-13373, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13963 (11th
Cir.). [2006 LR Aug]
Arrestee's plea of "no contest" to a
charge that he resisted arrest conclusive established that there was probable
cause for the arrest, barring him from pursuing a false arrest claim. Behm v.
Campbell, No. 5D05-2200, 925 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 2006). [N/R]
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
public school teacher, after they received reports about him allegedly allowing
students to smoke marijuana in his class and him engaging in
"inappropriate" behavior with female students. The fact that he was
later acquitted of criminal charges did not alter the result, as there was no
evidence that investigators fabricated the reports or inaccurately recorded the
information received. Jerrytone v. Musto, No. 04-4145, 167 Fed. Appx. 295 (3rd
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Warrantless entry into a suspect's house was
supported by exigent circumstances when the suspect shoved one officer and
attempted to shut the door on him, and the suspect was creating a disturbance
giving rise to a belief that he posed a danger to officers and others. Davis v.
Township of Paulsboro, No. 02-CV-3659, 421 F. Supp. 2d 835 (D.N.J. 2006). [N/R]
Police officers were entitled to absolute
immunity on an arrestee's claim that they offered perjured testimony at his
trial. Additionally, the arrestee, who was convicted of third-degree resisting
arrest, could not pursue his claims that his arrest and imprisonment were
unlawful when his conviction had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set
aside. Blacknall v. Citarella, No. 05-3694, 168 Fed. Appx. 489 (3rd Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
State troopers had probable cause to arrest
anti-war protestors for open "lewdness" for stripping down to their
thong underwear and forming a human pyramid during a campaign visit to their
town by President Bush prior to the 2004 election. Further, even if the
Pennsylvania open lewdness statute was unconstitutional under these
circumstances, the troopers did not violate any clearly established
constitutional right, because there was no prior case law establishing a right
to demonstrate in thong underwear. The trial court further found that the
lewdness law was not aimed at expression in violation of the First Amendment,
as it prohibited all public lewdness and indecent conduct, whether or not
carried out for purposes of expression. Egolf v. Witmer, No. Civ.A. 04-5695,
421 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Pa. 2006). [N/R]
Deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity
for making an entry into a home without consent or exigent circumstances to
make a warrantless arrest of a resident. Bashir v. Rockdale County, GA, No.
05-12020, 445 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Jul]
Federal appeals court upholds reduction of
damages from $1,104,000 to $464,000 in lawsuit arrestee brought arising out of
his arrest and prosecution for "public lewdness" in a transit station
restroom, while rejecting the argument that the damages should have been
further reduced. Plaintiff was also awarded $301,167.26 in attorneys' fees and
costs. Martinez v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, No. 04-6636, 445
F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Jul]
City ordinance that criminalizes homeless people
sitting, lying, or sleeping on streets and sidewalks at all times violates the
Eighth Amendment, federal appeals court rules by 2-1. Jones v. City of Los
Angeles, No. 04-55324, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) [2006 LR Jul]
Arrest of homeless man for erecting cardboard
structure in which he slept on park bench in New York City did not violate his
constitutional rights. Federal appeals court rules, 2-1, that the law under
which he was arrested was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, and that
there was probable cause for his arrest. Betancourt v. Bloomberg, No. 04-0926,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12259 (2d Cir.). [2006 LR Jul]
Detective had probable cause to arrest a man for
rape and robbery without a warrant, even though the victim did not identify him
at a lineup. Statements obtained from informants concerning the crime almost
exactly matched the victim's description as well as the description of another
eyewitness, and the informants specifically named the suspect as the
perpetrator. Golden v. City of New York, No. 03-CV-4964, 418 F. Supp. 2d 226
(E.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
There was probable cause for the warrantless
arrest of a rape suspect at a hospital based on the victim's in-person
identification of him and her description of the crime, so that the arresting
detective could not be held liable for false arrest or imprisonment when
charges against the arrestee were subsequently dismissed. Smith v. City of New
York, No. 03 Civ.3048, 388 F. Supp. 2d 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
The arrest of an African-American man on charges
of writing bad checks in another state did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights, despite the fact that the checks had actually been written by a white
man who had obtained his lost wallet, and used his identification to open a
false checking account. Based on the information known at the time of the
arrest, including the purported Social Security number of the check-writer, and
the plaintiff's failure to inform authorities that he was never in the place
where the checks were written, the actions taken were not unreasonable, and the
charges against the arrestee were dismissed as soon as it became known that he
was the wrong person. Stewart v. District Attorney, No. 2003-CA-02582-COA, 923
So. 2d 1017 (Miss. App. 2005), cert. denied (2006). [N/R]
Eleventh Amendment immunity did not apply to the
St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners in lawsuit over allegedly false arrest
because it is not an arm of the state of Missouri, even though the
Commissioners are appointed by the Governor. Federal appeals court expresses
some doubt about this, but finds that it was bound by prior precedent,
specifically the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis in Auer v. Robbins, #95-897, 519
U.S. 452 (1997). Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm'rs, No. 05-2655, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 12159 (8th Cir.). [N/R]
City's police officers did not act in reckless
disregard of cell phone owner's safety and rights in obtaining a warrant for
his arrest on charges of making multiple phone call bomb threats to the local
high school and police department based on incorrect information obtained from
the phone company. City was therefore immune from liability under Mississippi
state law. Phone company employee, in preparing requested information, transposed
two numbers in computer entry seeking identity of the person owning the phone
from which the bomb threats were made. City of Greenville v. Jones, No.
2003-CA-02640-SCT, 925 So. 2d 106 (Miss. 2006). [N/R]
Man arrested in domestic violence matter failed
to show that any possible violation of his right to equal protection was based
on a county policy of discrimination against males in such circumstances, so
that he could not pursue his claims against the county. Arresting officers were
entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that they violated his
Second Amendment rights by seizing his guns during a search of his residence,
since there was no clearly established individual Second Amendment
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Bloomquist v. Albee, No. Civ.
03-276, 421 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Me. 2006). [N/R]
Arrest of four female minors for violation of a
D.C. law imposing only civil penalties for underage possession or consumption
of alcoholic beverages stated a valid claim for violation of their Fourth
Amendment rights. Doe v. Metro. Police Dep't of the Dist. of Columbia, No.
04-7114, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10263 (D.C. Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
Truck driver of Iranian national origin failed to
show that he was prevented from using a gasoline restroom or paying for his gas
on the basis of his race, but was entitled to further proceedings on his
assertion that an off-duty police officer working as a security guard there
arrested him for disorderly conduct and trespass without probable cause.
Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., No. 05-1107, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9875 (7th
Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
Deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting a mobile home occupant inside her residence when there were factual
issues as to whether he possessed either an arrest warrant or probable cause
for the arrest at the time of entry. Additionally, because the duty of an
officer to intervene to prevent an unlawful arrest was clearly established at
the time, a second deputy who was present was also not entitled to qualified
immunity for his failure to do so. Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County
Commissioners, No. 05-13547, 159 Fed. Appx. 916 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer could arrest a suspect for her refusal to
provide identification, and the arrestee therefore could not recover damages on
her civil rights claim alleging that the police department had a policy of
inadequate training on arrests for refusal to provide identification. Coatney
v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., No. 04-15475, 158 Fed. Appx. 790 (9th
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer responding to a report of a domestic
disturbance between a mother and her 16-year-old daughter had probable cause to
arrest the mother when she obstructed his efforts to investigate the incident
by continuing to approach and interrupt his conversation with the daughter
after she had been told not to do so. Sullivan v. City of Pembroke Pines, No.
05-12754, 161 Fed. Appx. 906 (11th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Suspect's arrest on a charge of disorderly
conduct after he placed "tombstones" bearing the names of his
neighbors on his lawn and engaged in an altercation with one of his neighbors
in an officer's presence was supported by probable cause. Factual issues as to
whether the references to the neighbors on the "tombstones" were
"fighting words" or protected First Amendment speech barred summary
judgment for officer on arrestee's claim that his rights were violated when he
was asked to take down the "tombstones" placed in his yard. Purtell
v. Mason, No. 04C7005, 412 F. Supp. 2nd 903 (N.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
Arrest of a deaf motorist for driving under the
influence (DUI) did not violate his right against disability discrimination
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131, or the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, since the basis of the arrest was not
his disability, but rather probable cause, based on observation of his driving,
and the smell of alcohol on his breath, to believe that he was in fact
intoxicated, along with failure of a roadside sobriety test. Bircoll v.
Miami-Dade County, No. 05-20954-CIV, 410 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
[N/R]
While the statements "Allah praise the
Patriot Act," and "JIHAD on the First Amendment," painted on the
side of an arrestee's car, were protected speech under the First Amendment,
there was a genuine factual issue as to whether other statements on the
vehicle, such as that the driver was 'a fucking suicide bomber communist
terrorist!" with "W.O.M.D. on Board" were a "true
threat" not protected as free speech. Officers who arrested him were
therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability as to his claim that
his arrest violated his First Amendment rights. Fogel v. Grass Valley Police
Department, No. Civ. 05-0444, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2006). [N/R]
The constitutional right against unreasonable
seizure under the Pennsylvania state Constitution does not provide an arrestee
with any greater protect than is provided by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth
Amendment, and there is no right, under state law, to recover money damages for
an alleged violation of this state constitutional right, so that city and its
officers were entitled to summary judgment in arrestee's lawsuit asserting
state constitutional claims arising from his arrest. Jones v. City of
Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). [N/R]
Police officers were entitled to arrest suspect
on the basis of a couple's statement that he had threatened to kill them with a
knife following an auto accident, after a frisk found a knife in his possession
on the scene, and they were not required to refrain from arresting him merely
because he denied the accusation. Askew v. City of Chicago, No. 05-2194, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 6221 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
Officers had probable cause to arrest woman of
Palestinian descent and Muslim faith at airport three months after September
11th terrorist attacks for disorderly conduct after she stated to an airline
employee, "maybe I have a bomb in my purse." An arrest for disorderly
conduct was warranted even if no one actually believed she possessed a bomb.
Mustafa v. City of Chicago, No. 05-2101, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7200 (7th Cir.).
[2006 LR May]
Probable cause to arrest could be found on the
basis of an uncharged offense of trespass, resulting in the defeat of the
arrestee's state law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and
violation of the state constitution. Jackson v. City of Abbeville, No. 4056,
623 S.E.2d 656 (S.C. App. 2005). [N/R]
Arrestee's claim that he was arrested without a
warrant or probable cause, and that an officer pressured an informant to
implicate him in a drug transaction because he knew that he had no other
evidence was sufficient to defeat the officer's claimed qualified immunity
defense. Chavez v. De La Paz, No. 05-10210, 156 Fed. Appx. 694 (5th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
In arrestee's civil rights and false arrest
lawsuit, he was barred from arguing that he was not carrying drugs at the time
of his arrest when he argued in his appeal of his criminal conviction that the
drugs were inadmissible as the fruit of an illegal arrest, since that was
inconsistent with the argument that there were no drugs. Griffin v. City of
Chicago, No. 05C1571, 406 F. Supp. 2d 938 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
Sheriff's deputies who allegedly detained a man
and his wife, taking them from their home at night, on the basis of an
uncorroborated phone call from a hospital nurse stating that a two-year-old
child told her mother that the man had "hurt her pee pee" were not
entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and unlawful detention claims.
Cortez v. McCauley, No. 04-2062 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3270 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR
Apr]
Officers who placed an airline employee under
"arrest" and handcuffed her at the airport as part of a prank"
to celebrate the end of her probationary period, at the request of her
supervisors, were not entitled to qualified immunity on her federal civil
rights claims. If she truly and reasonably believed the "arrest" was
real, their actions violated clearly established law against detaining a person
without legal justification. Federal appeals court declines defendant officers'
invitation to adopt a "prank" exception to the Fourth Amendment's
warrant and probable cause requirements. Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
No. 04-2117, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5108 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
Officer's arrest of passenger for obstruction,
based on refusal to remain in the vehicle during a traffic stop was supported
by probable cause. Coffey v. Morris, Civ. A-No. 5:05CV00010, 40 F. Supp. 2d 542
(W.D. Va. 2005). [N/R]
The mere fact that a number of officers were
involved in the warrantless arrest of residents in their home, and that a
number of constitutional violations allegedly occurred during the incident was
insufficient to show that the city failed to properly train and supervise the
officers. There were no facts alleged to show how such purported inadequacies
in training or supervision caused the plaintiffs' damages. Gast v. Singleton,
No. Civ.A. G-05-427, 400 F. Supp. 2d 794 (S.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest an
alderman, attending a closed town board meeting, for refusing to leave after
being ordered to do so because he insisted on making a tape recording of the
proceedings despite a vote against such recording. King v. Jefferies, No.
1:04CV00007, 402 F. Supp. 2d 624 (M.D.N.C. 2005). [N/R]
Officer, despite incompetent administration of
field sobriety tests, had sufficient evidence of intoxication to have arguable
probable cause for initially arresting a driver for operating a vehicle under
the influence of alcohol and therefore had qualified immunity from liability
for false arrest, but lacked such probable cause to continue to detain him for
four hours after receiving the results of a breath test showing the motorist's
blood alcohol level was zero, and therefore was not entitled to qualified
immunity for the continued detention. Strickland v. City of Dothan, Alabama,
No. 1:04cv1045, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2005). [N/R]
Police detective who arrested suspect on
kidnapping charges for which he was subsequently acquitted was not entitled to
qualified immunity on false arrest claim when there were indications that he
ignored differences between the victim's description of her abductor and the
appearance of the arrestee, who had 42 moles on his face, which the victim
never mentioned seeing. Additionally, the man arrested also lacked the cleft or
"butt" chin and scar which she did describe. Ramirez v. County of Los
Angeles, No. CV 04-6102, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court reinstates false arrest
claims against police chief and officer in arrest of married couple for bank
robbery based on unclear videotape and allegedly coerced confession by wife
purportedly induced by threats to have a state agency take away her children
unless she admitted her involvement. Court also rules that evidence presented
factual issues as to whether the city had a municipal policy of deliberate
indifference towards the coercing of confessions from female suspects with such
tactics. Claims against city were based on both failure to train and failure to
correct officers' complained of behavior. Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, No.
04-3614, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1394 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Mar]
In a false arrest and wrongful imprisonment
lawsuit, where the trial judge had a conversation with another judge previously
disqualified to sit on the case just before granting the defendant city's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial,
regardless of any showing of prejudice, based on the "irregularity of the
proceedings" and a reasonable concern that the trial judge could not then
fairly decide the motion. Christie v. City of El Centro, No D044792 2006 Cal.
App. Lexis 33 (Cal. App.). [2006 LR Mar]
Assistant police chief's alleged action of
ordering arrest of 386 D.C. demonstrators gathered in a park, without providing
either an order to disperse or an opportunity to do so, and absent
particularized probable cause to arrest each of them, violated their clearly
established constitutional rights. Police chief who "tacitly"
approved the assistant chief's arrest order could also be liable, depending on
whether or not he knew that the park had not been cleared of people who had not
been observed breaking any law. Barham v. Ramsey, No. 04-5388, 04-5389, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 807 (D.C. Cir.). [2006 LR Mar]
Because a Pennsylvania state statute on underage
drinking of alcohol merely instructs officers to inform the parents of minors
charged with violating it, and says nothing about authority for a warrantless
arrest of the minor, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
an officer had probable cause to arrest a minor who dropped the bottles of beer
he was holding and fled from the officer. Summary judgment was therefore denied
to the officer on the minor's false arrest lawsuit. Davis v. Borough of
Norristown, No. Civ.A. 04-2116, 400 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Pa. 2005). [N/R]
State police officers who arrested a protestor at
a construction site for disorderly conduct when a truck attempting to enter the
site was surrounded on all sides by protestors and their children were entitled
to qualified immunity from his false arrest and malicious prosecution lawsuit.
In setting aside a jury's award of $80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000
in punitive damages, the trial judge found that it would not have been clear to
a reasonable officer that there was no probable cause for the arrest under
these circumstances. Zellner v. Summerlin, No. 02CV95, 399 F. Supp. 2d 154
(E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Arrest of motorist was supported by probable
cause based on his driving at an excessive rate of speed through a construction
zone and residential area, and the officer's belief, upon pulling him over,
that the motorist did not "appreciate the seriousness" of his
actions. The motorist could not dispute the officer's perception that he was
speeding as he admitted that he "may have been," and did not know
either what the speed limit was or how fast he was driving. The fact that the
motorist was subsequently acquitted did not alter the result. Woods v. Paradis,
No. 03-61280-CIV, 380 F. Supp. 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Excessive force, unreasonable search, and
invasion of privacy claims were properly dismissed as time-barred under Texas
two-year statute of limitations, but false arrest and malicious prosecution
claims would not accrue until criminal prosecution against arrestee terminated
in his favor. These claims, therefore, were not time-barred, and might be able
to be re-filed after the prosecution of the plaintiff concluded. Price v. City
of San Antonio, No. 04-51213, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26539 (5th Cir.). [2006 LR
Feb]
Police officers who put a homeowner under arrest
for violating a town's noise ordinance during a party at his residence had
probable cause for the arrest, and the homeowner was subsequently convicted of
violating the ordinance. His conviction barred him from relitigating the issue
of whether he violated the ordinance. Raphael v. County of Nassau, No.
CV03-1675, 387 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
The fact that a state judge denied an arrestee's
pre-trial motion to quash certain evidence as illegally obtained in his
criminal prosecution did not bar him, in a subsequent federal civil rights
lawsuit, from claiming that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest
him. The ruling on the pre-trial motion was not a final judgment on the merits,
and the arrestee was later acquitted on the basis of testimony not presented at
the pretrial hearing. Additionally, the arrestee's acquittal on the criminal
charges prevented him, in state court, from appealing the judge's ruling on the
pre-trial motion. Toro v. Gainer, No. 04C4484, 370 F. Supp. 2d 736 (N.D. Ill.
2005). [N/R]
Arrestee's lawsuit claiming false arrest on
charges of possession of drugs and assault on a police officer was barred by
the principles set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, No. 93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
when his conviction on those charges have not been overturned and his appeal of
those convictions were still pending. Heck, however, did not bar the arrestee's
claims against officers for alleged excessive use of force against him, since
success on those claims did not necessarily imply the invalidity of his
convictions. Powell v. Scanlon, No. Civ. 300CV01085, 390 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.
Conn. 2005). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest a woman for
making harassing phone calls based on a complaint from her former employer
identifying her as the maker of the calls, but there were no exigent
circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest in her home, since the officers
were responding to a three week old misdemeanor complaint, and the officers did
not show why they did not obtain a warrant. Officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity against the arrestee's claim that they violated her rights
by making the warrantless arrest. Breitbard v. Mitchell, No. 02-CV-1257, 390 F.
Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
A complainant's affidavit claiming that another
man had committed a battery against him, standing alone, could be an inadequate
basis for an arrest when the affidavit was a "fill in the blank"
battery affidavit and the arresting officer allegedly had knowledge of a long
existing feud between the two persons, and failed to take any further
statements from the complainant or interview any witnesses before making the
arrest. Row v. Holt, No. 15A01-0409-CV-405, 834 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. App. 2005).
[N/R]
Mere fact that two officers' names appeared on
the paperwork concerning a suspect's arrest was insufficient to render them
liable for the alleged violation of the arrestee's rights when they both denied
being involved in the arrest, or a subsequent strip search and interrogation,
and the arrestee himself did not identify them as being personally involved in
the incident. Vital v. New York, No. 04-2289, 136 Fed. Appx. 393 (2nd Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Commander of a local law enforcement drug unit
was entitled to qualified immunity from excessive force claims asserted by an
arrestee when there was no evidence showing that he personally participated in
any alleged unlawful conduct or created any rule or custom that led to such
conduct. Jones v. Pandey, No. 1:04-CV-99, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (M.D. Ga. 2005).
[N/R]
A woman arrested by an officer during a protest
demonstration supporting a black radical convicted of murdering a police
officer failed to show that her arrest was motivated by his hostility to the
political views of the demonstrators, as required to support a claim for
violation of the First Amendment. Instead, the evidence showed that he had
probable cause to arrest her for stepping in front of him in order to prevent
the arrest of another demonstrator, then fleeing, who had thrown a flaming
object at him. The woman's actions caused the officer to collide with her, and
both to fall to the ground, preventing him from apprehending the fleeing
suspect. Mims v. City of Eugene, No. 04-35042, 145 Fed. Appx. 194 (9th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Arrestee who had been convicted in state court of
failing to wear his seat belt properly, as required by California law, could
not pursue his federal civil rights claim that it was unconstitutional to
arrest him for that offense. Additionally, the motorist himself asked to be
taken before a magistrate rather than being issued a citation and signing it to
promise that he would later appear in court. Hupp v. City of Walnut Creek, No.
C03-5387, 389 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
University police in Massachusetts had authority
to arrest a man on a public street near the campus for alleged violation of a
protective order requiring him to stay at least 30 yards away from a student.
The fact that the arrestee was an alumnus did not alter the result, and a
brochure published by the university describing benefits for graduates did not
constitute a contract giving him any right to physical presence on campus under
the circumstances. Young v. Boston University, No. 04-P-919, 834 N.E.2d 760
(Mass. App. 2005). [N/R]
Probable cause existed for arrest of person who
entered a police station with a bag that she identified as a
"discovery" which needed to be turned over to the police, and which
contained a loaded semi-automatic gun and 19 packets of a substance appearing
to be crack cocaine. The motives of the arresting officer were irrelevant to
the issue of whether there were objective facts which could support an arrest.
Taylor v. City of Philadelphia, No. 04-3022, 144 Fed. Appx. 240 (10th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Plaintiff who was awarded $35,000 in compensatory
and $6,000 in punitive damages in his civil rights lawsuit against three state
troopers for allegedly arresting him without probable cause was not entitled to
pre-judgment interest when none of his losses were economic losses, since the
award of compensatory damages "made him whole." Had he been awarded
damages for economic losses previously experienced, pre-judgment interest may
have been available. Robinson v. Fetterman, No. Civ.A. 04-3502, 387 F. Supp. 2d
483 (E.D. Pa. 2005). [N/R]
False arrest lawsuit, filed almost two years
after the arrest, was time-barred under Puerto Rico's one-year statute of
limitations, which began to run from the time of the arrest. Morales v.
Fantauzzi, No. Civ. 04-2255, 389 F. Supp. 2nd 147 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005). [N/R]
District of Columbia one-year statute of
limitations for false arrest was "tolled" (extended) during the time
the arrestee was in jail, and did not start to run until his release from
custody. Fernandors v. District of Columbia, No. CIV.A.02-2001, 382 F. Supp. 2d
63 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
Casino security officer, licensed to make
warrantless arrests on her employer's premises under Michigan law, acted under
color of state law in detaining 72-year-old woman for picking up a five cent
token from the tray of an unoccupied slot machine. Federal appeals court
upholds jury determination that the detention was an unlawful arrest and
violated the woman's civil rights. $875,000 punitive damage award, however,
ordered reduced to $600,000 in lawsuit in which plaintiff was only awarded
$279.05 in compensatory damages. Romanski v. Detroit Entertainment, No.
04-1354, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 23336 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Dec]
Campus police officer who arrested
"campus-evangelist" for disorderly conduct for making rude and
confrontational speech to student crowd calling them "fornicators,"
"whores," and drunken "little devils" was entitled to
qualified immunity even if the speech was possibly protected by the First
Amendment. Given the manner of the speech and the crowd's reaction, a
reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause for an arrest.
Gilles v. Davis, No. 04-2542, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 23001 (3d Cir.). [2005 LR
Dec]
Officer's use of force against motorist being
arrested for driving under the influence was not excessive, but reasonable to
prevent him from fleeing when the motorist was backing away from the officer as
he asked him if he was the driver involved in an accident at the scene. Officer
grabbed the motorist, throwing him onto the police car, and then handcuffed
him. Officer had probable cause to arrest motorist who admitted that he was the
driver of a car apparently at fault for a serious accident, and that he had
been drinking. Ankele v. Hambrick, No. 03-4225, 136 Fed. Appx. 551 (3rd Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Deputy sheriff was not liable for arresting
motorist for intentionally tape recording his conversation with deputy during
traffic stop. Florida state statute prohibiting such recording did not have an
exception for tape recording a police officer under these circumstances. Migut
v. Flynn, No. 04-16459, 131 Fed. Appx. 262 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest suspect
after receiving a report from the purported victim, a known and credible
witness, that the suspect had "stalked" her, and the officer knew
that the suspect had a history of similar behavior. Pardue v. Gray, No.
04-2784, 136 Fed. Appx. 529 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Motorist's plea of guilty to speeding showed that
officers had probable cause for his arrest, and the officers did not use
excessive force by merely drawing their weapons when the vehicle was stopped at
3:30 a.m. in a secluded and unlit area. Cunningham v. Sisk, No. 03-6640, 136
Fed. Appx. 771 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Police
detective could reasonably have believed that he had probable cause to arrest a
suspected drug dealer and convicted felon believed to be in possession of
weapons, and to use force in doing so, based on information obtained from
confidential informants, and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity for
doing so. Appeals court also upholds searches of suspect's two apartments,
based on telephone confirmation of issuance of search warrant in one case, and
consent of co-occupant on the other. Burrell v. McIlroy, #02-15114, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 20060 (9th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a man for
allegedly violating an order of protection when the alleged victim filed a
sworn complaint that he was harassing her via telephone and e-mail. The officer
acted properly, verifying the existence of the protective order and viewing the
threatening e-mails allegedly sent by the arrestee, and the officer could
reasonably have believed that the e-mails were sent by the arrestee, even
though it turned out that they were "fakes" sent by someone else
bearing the arrestee's e-mail address. McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police
Officers, No. 03 CIV. 10037, 379 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest suspect for
alleged heroin distribution based upon tip from informant, although
uncorroborated, and the fact that the suspect fled upon the officers' approach.
Bradley v. Village of Greenwood Lake, No. 04CV973, 376 F. Supp. 2d 528
(S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Police captain who led "sting"
operation in which persons with outstanding arrest warrants were invited to a
phony "job fair" to be arrested was entitled to qualified immunity in
lawsuit by woman mistakenly arrested there who merely drove her boyfriend to
the event and who had no criminal record or outstanding warrant. Wilson v. City
of Boston, No. 04-1310, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18847 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Sheriff's deputy could not reasonably believe
that there was probable cause to arrest a dog's owner for assault and battery
merely on the basis that her arm was scratched by the claws, teeth or collar of
the dog as it brushed past her. The deputy was not, therefore, entitled to
summary judgment in the arrestee's false arrest lawsuit. Gaines v. Brewer, No.
04-3496, 132 Fed. Appx. 67 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to make an arrest for
public intoxication after observing a man staggering around on and off the
road, and subsequently found him unconscious and smelling of alcohol. Nichols
v. Town of Cedar Lake, No. 03-4301, 131 Fed. Appx. 488 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Probation agent had probable cause to arrest a
probationer for making "terroristic threats" during a confrontation
at the probation office. Johnson v. Knorr, No. 04-2870, 130 Fed. Appx. 552 (3rd
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest three
campers for violations of "quiet hours" rules at state campground,
even though they were not making noise at the time of the arrest, based on
information he received in a report from another officer concerning noise they
had allegedly previously made. Swindell v. N.Y. State Department of
Environmental Conservation, No. 1:03CV00770, 371 F. Supp. 2d 172 (N.D.N.Y.
2005). [N/R]
Arresting officer's observation of motorist
swerving his vehicle while driving, the odor of alcohol on the driver's breath,
and the fact that the driver failed a field sobriety test provided probable
cause for an arrest and prosecution, precluding a malicious prosecution claim.
Joseph v. West Manheim Police Dept., No. 04-3828, 131 Fed. Appx. 833 (3rd Cir.
2005). [N/R]
No reasonable officer could have believed that
there was arguable probable cause to arrest, for obstruction, an
African-American attorney who allegedly watched a traffic stop of two young
black men by white police officers from forty to fifty feet away, and did
nothing to interfere or intervene. Officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity from liability. Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, No. 04-1969, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 14802 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
Witness in murder case was under arrest when he
was interviewed because officers handcuffed him, put him in the back of their
squad car and took him to the police station for the questioning, defeating the
officer's argument that they had not made an arrest. Additionally, there was a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the city had an official policy of
handcuffing and detaining all witnesses in murder investigations, which
precluded summary judgment for the city in the witness's false arrest/false
imprisonment lawsuit. Taylor v. City of Detroit, No. 03-73595, 368 F. Supp. 2d
676 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
Officers who were merely present when a number of
arrestees were allegedly grabbed and handcuffed by other unidentified officers
could not be held liable vicariously for the other officers' alleged improper
arrests. Neyland v. Molinaro, No. 03-73090, 368 F. Supp. 2d 787 (E.D. Mich.
2005). [N/R]
Summary judgment was improper in false arrest
lawsuit by fast food patron taken into custody by deputy sheriff after he
presented a genuine one hundred dollar bill for payment which restaurant
mistakenly believed was counterfeit, based on a genuine issue of fact as to
whether the deputy acted reasonably in making the arrest. Kennedy v. Sheriff of
East Baton Rouge, No. 2004 CA 0574, 899 So. 2d 682 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
There was probable cause to arrest a police
officer for being involved in a drug deal when he failed to immediately report
that a confidential informant had picked up a package at the bus station, and
also failed to follow the informant after the pick-up. Hunter v. City of
Monroe, #04-30362, 128 Fed. Appx. 374 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting the wife and daughter of a man they were attempting to
arrest. The record showed that both the wife and daughter knowingly tried to
interfere with the officers through both shouting at the officers, and
attempting to approach the man being arrested. Demster v. City of Lenexa, No.
04-2420, 359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
While police officer had adequate probable cause
to arrest motorist for reckless driving after observing her going 76 miles per
hour in a 45 mile per hour zone, genuine issues as to whether he improperly
used excessive force against her after she was handcuffed, jerking her up by
the handcuffs in a manner severe enough to cause a disabling injury, barred
summary judgment for him in her federal civil rights lawsuit. Polk v. Hopkins,
#04-1130, 129 Fed. Appx. 285 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Arrestees who had entered a plea in state court
admitting that they attempted to use unlawful force to inflict bodily injury on
another person were barred from pursuing a federal civil rights claim based on
the alleged invalidity of their arrests. Johnson v. Lindon City Corporation,
No. 04-4067, 405 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
The closing of one corner of an intersection
during a visit by President Bush to a city was a reasonable time, place, and
manner restriction on protest speech and did not violate the First Amendment.
Factual issues, however, as to whether a police officer had warned a protester
that crossing the street was prohibited before arresting her for doing so
barred granting qualified immunity to the officer on a false arrest claim.
Burnett v. Bottoms, No. CV031891, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2005). [N/R]
Immigration officer reasonably should have known
that the arrest and detention of an alien returning to this country after
attending his father's funeral abroad was a violation of the Fourth Amendment
when he had valid permission from immigration authorities to attend the funeral
and return. Officer was therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, and
plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the illegality of the detention.
Sissoko v. Rocha, No. 03-55667 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 11052 (9th Cir.). [2005 LR
Aug]
Woman who claimed she was improperly arrested for
obstruction of justice without probable cause was entitled to a new trial after
trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the legal issue of whether the
arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Willingham v. Crooke, No.
04-1548, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 12129 (4th Cir.). [2005 LR Aug]
Police officers did not act unreasonably in detaining
or arresting grandfather in the course of a custody dispute in which he and his
wife allegedly interfered with his daughter-in-law's efforts to gain access to
her son, who her estranged husband had taken to the grandparents' day care
center. Tarver v. City of Edna, No. 04-40734, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9533 (5th
Cir.). [2005 LR Jul]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting for trespass a woman who broke into a house in which she
had been sexually assaulted in order to retrieve her clothes. The facts within
the officers' knowledge at the time were sufficient to give them a reasonable
belief that she had committed the crime for which they arrested her. Wright v.
City of Philadelphia, No. 03-1633 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 10370 (3d Cir.). [2005
LR Jul]
Officers had probable cause to arrest the
plaintiff for providing false information about a crime when they had reason to
believe that he had falsely told police that a particular person had broken
into or forced his way into his home. Granger v. Slade, No. CIV.A. 302CV1209LN,
361 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D. Miss. 2005). [N/R]
Off-duty police officer had probable cause to
arrest motorist for driving while intoxicated based on his observations,
including erratic driving, the strong odor of alcohol, and the motorist's bloodshot
and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and staggering, as well as the observation of
an open, and mostly consumed, bottle of wine in the driver's vehicle. Delong v.
Domenici, No. A04A2222, 640 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. App. 2005). [N/R]
Factual issues as to whether officers reasonably
relied on statements by the arrestee's ex-wife in deciding to arrest him, or
should have reasonably made further inquiries precluded dismissal of a false
arrest lawsuit against them. Fausto v. City of New York, 793 N.Y.S.2d 165 (A.D.
2nd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
The arrestee's possession of a prescription
steroid medication provided probable cause to arrest him even though he had
"at one time" had a prescription for the drug when there was no
evidence that he possessed the drug under a current prescription at the time of
the arrest. Burdeshaw v. Snell, No. 2:03cv1220, 365 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Ala.
2005). [N/R]
Officers could have believed that they had
probable cause to arrest motorist for driving under the influence of an intoxicant
other than alcohol based on his alleged reckless driving, appearance,
difficulty in exiting the vehicle, verbal confrontation with an officer, and
refusal to take field sobriety tests. Meadows v. Thomas, No. 03-5609, 117 Fed.
Appx. 397 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Arresting officers who had at least arguable
probable cause to believe that the suspect was one of the robbers they saw
committing a crime and attempting to escape were entitled to qualified immunity
from false arrest and false imprisonment claims. Wray v. City of New York, No.
01-CV-04837, 340 F. Supp. 2d 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Officers lacked probable cause to arrest woman on
two-month old tip from an informant concerning alleged drug transactions and
police chief's belief that she had lied when asked about her prior whereabouts.
Observation of arrestee for eight consecutive Friday evenings failed to
corroborate informant's claim that she had been making a drug buy each Friday.
Travis v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, No. 02 Civ. 6155, 355 F. Supp. 2d 740
(S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on
false arrest claims asserted by wife and daughter they arrested for obstructing
legal process after they allegedly screamed at the officers and attempted to
intervene as the officers allegedly physically assaulted their husband and
father. Facts alleged made it at least arguable that the actions of the
arrestees constituted such obstruction. Demster v. City of Lenexa, No. 04-2420,
352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting juvenile murder victim's brother for her killing based on the facts,
which included the murder victim being found dead in her clothes and none of
the other members of the household hearing the victim scream, suggesting that
she knew her attacker, and inconsistencies in the arrestee's statement. Crowe
v. County of San Diego, No. 99CV0241, 359 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Cal. 2005).
[N/R]
Off-duty police officer had probable cause to arrest
two women for being in a public park after closing hours even if local police
department operating procedure would arguably have cautioned against an arrest
under those circumstances. Department's operating procedures were also not
relevant on federal civil rights claims for excessive force, when the issue was
whether the officer's use of force was "reasonable, not optimal."
Tanberg v. Sholtis, No. 03-2231, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4332 (10th Cir. 2005).
[2005 LR May]
Officer had probable cause for arrest of suspect
and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity when he conducted an
objectively reasonable investigation, including asking the crime victim to
personally identify the arrestee as the person who had purportedly threatened
him with death. Alhofen v. Monteilh, No. 03-16960, 118 Fed. Appx. 170 (9th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Officers could rely on statements from a man's
former wife accusing him of having violated a court order of protection to
place him under arrest, when there were no circumstances that created doubts
about her veracity. Accordingly, the officers could not be held liable for
false arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. Coyle v. Coyle, No.
03CV 3286, 354 F. Supp. 2d 207 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Undercover policewoman posing as a prostitute was
not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man for patronizing a
prostitute when there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they
discussed sex and whether the arrestee had offered to pay money for sex, as
well as whether she had made knowingly false statements in order to initiate a
criminal proceeding against him. Brockington v. City of Philadelphia, No.
Civ.A.03-5014, 354 F. Supp. 2d 563 (E.Pa. 2005). [N/R]
Man convicted of assaulting police officers could
not pursue federal civil rights claims arising out of his arrest, prosecution
and conviction when his conviction had not been set aside, based on the rule
stated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). He could, however, pursue
claims concerning the officers' alleged use of excessive force against him
during the incident, if he amends the complaint to provide more specifics of
those claims. Velez v. Hayes, No. 04 Civ. 1306, 346 F. Supp. 2d 557 (S.D.N.Y.
2004). [N/R]
Employee of Government Printing Office arrested by GPO
special police officer could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit for
unlawful arrest under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 since the officer did not act under
color of District of Columbia law, but under the authority of federal law, even
though he arrested the employee for violating a D.C. statute against disorderly
conduct. Williams v. U.S., No. 03-5316, 396 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
[2005 LR Apr]
The testimony presented in state court criminal
proceedings, as described in transcripts the plaintiff arrestee himself
attached to his complaint alleging false arrest, established the existence of
probable cause as a matter of law, justifying the dismissal of his lawsuit. The
plaintiff was arrested during a narcotics surveillance, and was discovered to
be in possession of twenty-five packets of heroin. The materials the plaintiff
attached to his complaint indicated that the officers observed several
hand-to-hand transactions between himself and other persons during their surveillance,
and that the officers believed that they were witnessing narcotics
transactions. Averhart v. City of Chicago, No. 04-1340, 114 Fed. Appx. 246 (7th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Police had probable cause to arrest a civil
process server on charges of impersonating an officer when he identified
himself to them as a deputy sheriff, but could not produce any verification of
that claim, and the sheriff's office told them that he had no such authority.
Additionally, the officers had been informed that the process server had
threatened at least one person with arrest. Orso v. Cobb, No. CV 03-214, 348 F.
Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Hawai'i 2004). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest two parents
for sexual abuse of minors after two of their children acknowledged having
sexual contact with them. The fact that the parents' conviction was
subsequently set aside and the children later recanted their accusations did
not alter the fact that probable cause existed at the time of the arrest. The
officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Doggett v. Perez, No.
CS-02-282, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (E.D. Wash. 2004). [N/R]
Probable cause existed to arrest a man based on
statements by a complainant and his girlfriend that he had threatened them with
a gun and assaulted the girlfriend, even though the girlfriend declined to be
taken to a hospital for medical treatment. Officers could reasonably rely on
statements by purported victims of a crime, in the absence of something to cast
doubt on their truthfulness. Golub v. City of New York, No. 03 Civ. 0239, 334
F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Deputy sheriffs had sufficient probable cause to
arrest a man for burglary when a trail of his footprints went from the entered
home to his own residence and he had a gun matching the homeowner's description
of the gun used by the burglar. Carver v. Mack, No. 03-4019, 112 Fed. Appx. 432
(6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Probable cause existed to arrest demonstrators
who burned a professional baseball team (the Cleveland Indians) mascot in
effigy outside a stadium, and the arrests were an "incidental
restriction" on the First Amendment free speech rights of the
demonstrators, who claimed that the team's Indian logo was disparaging to
Native Americans and their culture. This incidental restriction was no greater,
the court found, than what was essential to protect public safety. Bellecourt
v. City of Cleveland, No. 2003-1202, 820 N.E.2d 309 (Ohio 2004). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest company
vice-president for allegedly overstating the amount of a loss from a theft of
cigarettes from the company warehouse, based on evidence known to them prior to
the arrest. Flynn v. Brown, No. 04-1444, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 933 (8th Cir.).
[2005 LR Mar]
Police officers could not be personally liable
for the arrest of a man under a New York state harassment statute, for mailing
"annoying" written materials on religious and political issues to a
candidate for Lieutenant Governor. While the trial court believed that the statute,
when applied in this manner, violated the arrestee's First Amendment rights,
the officers did not have fair notice, at the time of the arrest, that the
courts would "inevitably" declare the statute unconstitutional. Vives
v. City of New York, No. 03-9270, 393 F.3d 129 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2005 LR
Mar]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest the
driver of a pickup truck struck from behind by a tractor trailer. The physical
evidence was consistent with the version of the incident given by the driver of
the tractor trailer, who asserted that the pickup truck driver pulled in front
of him, taunted him, and applied his brakes. Even the arrestee, while denying
the taunting, admitted having applied his brakes. Christman v. Kick, No.
CIV.A.3:02 CV 1405, 342 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
Criminal conviction of two arrestees on the
charges which they were arrested on was a complete defense to their civil
rights false arrest lawsuit, as it conclusively showed that there was probable
cause for their arrests. Brown v. Willey, No. 04-1371, 391 F.3d 968 (8th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Officers' receipt of a report of a drug
transaction, their observation of the passing of a packet of what they believed
was marijuana from the arrestee to another person, and the recovery of a packet
of marijuana was sufficient, taken together, to show probable cause for the
arrest. McDade v. Stacker, No. 03-2681, 106 Fed. Appx. 471 (7th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Probable cause existed to arrest police officer
for physically abusing a 12-year-old minor when the juvenile arrived at a
police station in the sole custody of the officer, was bleeding from his nose
and mouth, stated that the officer hit him when he had "gotten
smart," and the officer failed to offer any explanation to investigators
as to how the injuries occurred. Anderer v. Jones, #02-3669, 385 F.3d 1043 (7th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Student arrested by a state university police
officer after another officer told him that the student had assaulted him
failed to state a claim for violation of his equal protection rights, since he
did not show that he was treated any differently from other similarly situated
persons. Cook v. James, No. 03-2391, 100 Fed. Appx. 178 (4th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
University police officer had probable cause to
arrest teacher for interfering with his duties when he attempted to argue that
the officer should not handcuff a struggling combative student in a tense
situation while eight persons who had allegedly previously attacked the student
were still present. Haggarty v. Texas S. University, No. 03-20411, 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 24091 (5th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Feb]
Officers who arrested a tenant for burglary when
he broke in a home in which the locks had been changed following a rent dispute
with his landlord were not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit for false
arrest. Radvansky v. Olmsted Falls, No. 03-3798, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 739 (6th
Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
Jury's inconsistent verdict, finding an
investigating officer liable for false imprisonment and the arresting officer
not liable, was against the weight of the evidence and required a new trial,
since the investigating officer's only involvement in the case concerned an
earlier investigation that did not result in arrest. Jonielunas v. City of
Worcester Police Department, No. Civ.A.00-40211, 338 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Mass.
2004). [N/R]
Detective who arrested suspect for alleged drug
trafficking was entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest and malicious
prosecution claims when a reasonable officer could have found probable cause
for the arrest based on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of
drugs and drug paraphernalia, including a drug scale, found in a bedroom
believed to be the suspect's. Further, the arrestee was subsequently released,
with the charges against him dropped, when exonerating evidence was presented.
Devatt v. Lohenitz, No. Civ.A.03-CV-5558, 338 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D.Pa. 2004).
[N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest motorist
involved in single-car accident in which his vehicle crashed through a traffic
sign and fire hydrant, since the circumstances were such that they would not
usually occur in the absence of some misconduct. The officer could reasonably
conclude that the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, even
though it would have been equally reasonable for him to conclude that the
accident happened because of some medical problem affecting the motorist. Cuvo
v. De Bias, No. Civ.A.03-CV-5799, 339 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D.Pa. 2004). [N/R]
New Mexico jury's award of $55,000 in damages for
deputy sheriff's false arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff was properly
reduced to $41,250 based on the jury's finding that the arrestee was 25%
negligent and the deputy was 25% negligent in connection with the incident. The
jury's finding that the deputy's belief that the plaintiff was resisting or
obstructing an officer was "unreasonable" rather than
"intentional" was closer to a finding of negligence than intentional
misconduct, justifying the application of the doctrine of comparative
negligence to reduce the damage award. Garcia v. Gordon, No. 23,938, 98 P.3d
1044 (N.M. App. 2004). [N/R]
Police chief was not entitled to qualified
immunity in case where a mass arrest was allegedly made of a group of
demonstrators in a park despite the fact that no dispersal order had been
given. Even if he was unaware of the absence of a dispersal order, his approval
of the arrests was not objectively reasonable in the alleged absence of any
investigation by him of the justification for the arrest. Federal trial court
states that when a group gathered in a public place contains persons who have
not been obstructive or violent, a mass arrest is improper in the absence of a
fair warning or notice and the opportunity to comply with an order to disperse.
Barham v. Ramsey, No. Civ.A. 02-2283, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court: a warrantless arrest is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the officer, based on the
facts known to him, has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
The crime justifying the arrest need not necessarily be "closely
related" to the offense actually cited as the reason for the arrest.
Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710, 2004 U.S. Lexis 8272. [2005 LR Jan]
Officer had probable cause to remove motorist
from his vehicle when he refused a lawful order to produce his driver's
license, and did not use excessive force in doing so when he could reasonably
believe that he was attempting to evade arrest and posed a possible danger to
pedestrians and others in the area. Lawrence v. Kenosha County, No. 04-1472,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24830 (7th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting fifteen-year-old's father for allegedly furnishing him with a
controlled substance. Officer's consultation with local prosecutor prior to
making the arrest was one factor to be considered in that determination. Cox v.
Hainey, No. 04-1761, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24766 (1st Cir. 2004). [2005
LR Jan]
Officers had probable cause to arrest a parent
for trespass after a school official told them he had asked the parent to leave
the school premises and that the request had been ignored, regardless of
whether the parent had actually been told to leave. Arum v. Miller, No.
00-CV-7476 (DRH)(ETB), 331 F. Supp. 2d 99 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Officers who failed to provide evidence of what
they were told about airline passenger's behavior aboard plane before they
removed her and took her to a psychiatric hospital were not entitled to
qualified immunity in her federal civil rights lawsuit asserting that they
violated her right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, since the court
could not determine, in the absence of such evidence, whether the officers
acted reasonably at the time in seizing her. Turturro v. Continental Airlines,
No. 00 Civ. 0637(PKC), 334 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest motorist who
was driving vehicle for fleeing or attempting to elude him when she admitted
that she had seen police vehicles pursuing her with lights flashing and heard
their sirens and then told her husband, who was sought on suspicion of having
earlier violated a motorcycle law, that she was just going to "go ahead
and drive home" because she was so close to it. Wright v. City of St.
Francis, Kansas, No. 02-3337, 95 Fed. Appx. 916 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Plaintiff in federal civil rights lawsuit against
police officials could not show that he suffered a "seizure" for
Fourth Amendment purposes when he was issued tickets to appear in court on
charges for disorderly conduct and stalking. Charges against him were
subsequently dropped, and there was no evidence that he was ever actually required
to appear in court and answer the charges. Federal appeals court also finds
that plaintiff failed to show that officers lacked probable cause to issue him
the tickets. Prose v. Wendover, No. 02-1950, 96 Fed. Appx. 358 (6th Cir.
2004).[N/R]
A "zero tolerance" policy allowing more
severe treatment of children than adults, under which 12-year-old girl was
arrested for eating a single french fry in a train station, while adults were
given citations, was not unconstitutional. Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Area
Transit Auth., No. 03-7149, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 22230 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004
LR Dec]
Officer violated arrestee's First Amendment
rights by arresting him for disorderly conduct for yelling obscenities at a
Canadian flag being carried in parade for the purposes of expressing his
political opinion about the Canadian government's lack of support for U.S.
military actions in Iraq. Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from
liability, as the arrestee's comments did not constitute "fighting words,"
and a reasonable officer would have known that there was no probable cause for
an arrest. Levine v. Clement, No. CIV. A. 03-30206-KPN, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.
Mass. 2004). [N/R]
Indictment of arrestee for second-degree
attempted murder charge barred his claims for false arrest and malicious
prosecution, in the absence of any proof that the indictment was returned
because of a suppression of evidence, perjury, fraud, or other government
misconduct. Rivas v. Suffolk County, No. CV95-387, 326 F. Supp. 2d 355
(E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity in
motorist's lawsuit asserting claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest
based on a pursuit that concluded with the motorist's vehicle colliding with a
fire hydrant. Based on the motorist pleading guilty to disorderly conduct
charges in exchange for the dismissal of other charges against him, the
plaintiff could not show that the prosecution terminated in his favor or that
the officer did not have probable cause for the arrest. Timmins v. Toto, No.
02-9206, 91 Fed. Appx. 165 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Arrest of motorist for driving under the
influence of an intoxicant was adequately supported by probable cause even
though she did not appear to be intoxicated in the officer's presence or at a
hospital emergency room when she did not respond to attempts to rouse her at
the scene of the accident, told the officer that she had taken a prescription
narcotic and several other prescription medications, and a doctor at the
hospital informed the officer that these medications could cause impairment and
that the motorist had informed him that she "blacked out" prior to
the accident. Keyes v. Ervin, #02-5509, 92 Fed. Appx. 232 (6th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Police chief could reasonably believe that he had
probable cause to arrest a man for disorderly conduct when he refused requests
to cease videotaping a borough council meeting or move his video equipment, and
thereby "disrupting" the meeting. Judgment in favor of defendant
police chief, municipality, and mayor upheld. Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill,
No. 03-3100, 105 Fed. Appx. 357 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Arrestee's claims for false arrest were barred by
his convictions for disorderly conduct and fleeing from an officer. Burch v.
Naron, #04-6006, 333 F. Supp. 2d 816 (W.D. Ark. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer could rely on store detective's
statement that he had observed a woman and her sons take two jackets from the
premises without paying, despite her display of a "layaway" receipt
purporting to show her purchase of these or similar items thirteen days
earlier. Summary judgment was properly granted to defendants in arrestee's
civil rights lawsuit. Acosta v. Ames Dep't Stores, Inc., No. 04-1016, 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 19823 (1st Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Nov]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on motorist's claim that she was arrested for alcohol or drug induced driving
without evidence of that, after she was involved in a collision with an
off-duty officer's car. The motorist's version of the incident, if believed,
supported her assertion that the officers fabricated smelling an odor of
cannabis to manufacture probable cause for an arrest. Kingsland v. City of
Miami, No. 03-13331, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18409 (11th Cir.). [2004 LR Nov]
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether officers
were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a motorist for tape recording
a traffic stop without consent, which was not a crime under applicable state
law, based on the existence of arguable probable cause to arrest him for crimes
"not closely related" to the charged offense. Alford v. Haner,
#01-35141, 333 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court granted review
in Devenpeck v. Alford, #03-710, 124 S. Ct. 2014 (2004). [2004 LR Nov]
City's procedures for obtaining a post-arrest
probable cause determination in warrantless arrests did not violate
constitutional requirements, despite not requiring a personal appearance of the
arrestee before the magistrate and the use of a pre-printed form for the
officer to fill out and submit along with the arrest report and related
records. Jones v. City of Santa Monica, No. 03-55211 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 19046
(9th Cir. September 10, 2004) [2004 LR Nov]
Maine police officer had arguable probable cause
to arrest a homeowner on a drug offense when he had information presenting a
reasonable likelihood that the arrestee had furnished a prescription drug to
his teenage son, who then sold it to a confidential informant. Officer was
therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability for false arrest. Cox
v. Maine State Police, 324 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Maine). [N/R]
Police officers had probable cause to arrest
armed security guard for unlawful possession of a firearm when he lacked one of
several documents required to authorize him to possess a weapon while going to
and from work. But the arrestee could pursue his claim that they unlawfully
caused him to be detained for longer than 48 hours without a proper finding of
probable cause when the only evidence they submitted at his probable cause
hearing was a written complaint authored by one officer, signed by another, and
with the forged signature of yet a third officer placed in the space intended
for a judge or court clerk to verify that the officer signing the complaint had
sworn to its truthfulness. Haywood v. City of Chicago, No. 03-3175, 378 F.3d
714 (7th Cir., 2004) [2004 LR Oct]
Deputy had probable cause to arrest a motorist
for alleged involvement in an accident causing bodily injury to a person after
he received a dispatch concerning a hit-and-run accident which included the
license number and approximate location of the vehicle, and the make and model
of the car. The officer, at the time, had no reason to question the information
in the dispatch, and the fact that it subsequently was shown that the motorist
was not involved in the accident did not alter the result. Factual questions
requiring further proceedings existed, however, concerning whether the deputy
used excessive force in the course of making the arrest, and whether there was
probable cause to institute a proceeding against the driver for negligent
driving. Hines v. French, #1784, 852 A.2d 1047 (Md. App. 2004). [N/R]
Officers reasonably relied on confidential
informant's identification of man in photograph as the person from whom she had
purchased drugs on three occasions in arresting suspect, particularly after
grand jury indicted him on the basis of the information. The informant had
proved reliable in the past, and there were no prior difficulties in the arrest
and prosecutions of drug dealers she had identified. Ayers v. Davidson, No.
03-6095, 101 Fed. Appx. 595 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Success on an arrestee's claim that she was
arrested without probable cause for aggravated assault and unlawful use of a
weapon following an argument with an officer in order to silence her political
speech would imply the invalidity of her criminal conviction for assault. She
was therefore barred from pursuing a federal civil rights claim over the arrest
until and unless she succeeded in having that conviction overturned, under the
principles set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Minson v.
Village of Hopedale, #03-3507, 102 Fed. Appx. 42 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Woman's arrest for criminal trespass for entering
a restricted area where then President Clinton was delivering a speech, and
refusing to leave when asked to do so was supported by probable cause. The
purpose of the initial stop of the arrestee, which was aimed at protecting a
U.S. President from any potential threats supported a "greater
intrusion" on the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights than would be
allowable under other circumstances. The arrestee was carrying no
identification and was dressed in a uniform similar to the ones that security
guards at that location were wearing. Kampinen v. Martinez, No. 03-3221, 102
Fed. Appx. 492 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest woman
for disorderly conduct and harassment after he received complaints about
someone randomly ringing doorbells at a condominium complex in the early
morning hours. He had observed her at the location, she matched the description
given of the suspect, and she told him that she had gotten lost and had rung
several doorbells at the building. The officer was not required to give any
credence to her explanation. Straub v. Kilgore, 100 Fed. Appx. 379 (6th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Deputy sheriffs did not violate an apparently
intoxicated individual's rights by detaining him and transporting him to the
hospital, despite having no reason to suspect that he committed any crime.
Under the deputies' "community caretaking" function, they were
justified in detaining him when he was found walking along a roadway in a rural
area in the winter without proper winter clothing. Additionally, they were
justified in assisting, at the hospital, with his involuntary catheterization,
when they were merely helping medical personnel to carry out health care
decisions to which they did not assist in making. Tinius v. Carroll County
Sheriff Department, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2004). [N/R]
Deputies had probable cause to arrest woman's
stepfather for disorderly conduct for yelling obscenities and other
"fighting words" at her and her husband in the morning after being
involved in a domestic dispute with them the evening before. Gower v. Vercler,
No. 02-4112, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15281 (7th Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
An arrest of anti-abortion protesters for holding
posters of mutilated fetuses was reasonable under a city ordinance making it
unlawful to stand in a public place and hinder traffic, and a valid use of
police power to protect public safety, and therefore did not violate the First
Amendment. Arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Frye v.
Kansas City, Mo., No. 03-2134, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15366 (8th Cir. July 26,
2004) [2004 LR Sep]
Arrestee failed to contradict the city's evidence
that its police officers were properly trained and could not, therefore, pursue
a claim against the city or chief of police for failure to properly train and
supervise officers. The plaintiff asserted that his arrest was based on false
information and information from bribed witnesses, but failed to show any
evidence that police officers had any reason to know that the information
implicating him in a murder was false. Hampton v. City of Jonesboro, Arkansas,
No. 03-1811, 90 Fed. Appx. 971 (8th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
The issues as to whether a husband was falsely
arrested for assault and whether his former wife should have been arrested
instead were already litigated and determined in their dissolution of marriage
proceeding, and the husband therefore was barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel from raising and relitigating them again in his lawsuit for false
arrest and malicious prosecution. Law enforcement defendants were entitled to
summary judgment. Riemers v. Anderson, No. 20030317, 680 N.W.2d 280 (N.D.
2004). [N/R]
Claim against sheriff for alleged unlawful arrest
and confinement accrued, for statute of limitations purposes, when the
plaintiff was arrested for criminal trespass, when he was never charged or
prosecuted for the offense, and the plaintiff's lawsuit was therefore properly
dismissed as barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Dopp v. Rask, No.
03-3150, 91 Fed. Appx. 79 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man's
fiancee for violating a California state statute against the willful infliction
of "corporal injury" on a cohabitant, even if she lacked any
intention to injure him. Both the man and his fiancee admitted to the officers
that she had punctured his ear when trying to restrain him by grabbing his arm
and the officers also observed both the blood on the fiancee's shirt and the
puncture wound on the man's ear. Estrada v. County of Los Angeles, No.
02-56742, 91 Fed. Appx. 28 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Off-duty police officer serving as store security
guard had probable cause for arrest of patron who was "loud and rude"
in connection with discussion of dispute with store employee. Initial guilty
finding in trial court on criminal charges conclusively proved that the officer
had probable cause for arrest, barring a claim for malicious prosecution,
despite the prosecutor's subsequent decision, when the arrestee appealed, to
drop the charges. Sundeen v. Kroger, No. 03-386, 133 S.W.3d 393 (Ark. 2003).
[N/R]
Officers responding to domestic disturbance
report had probable cause to arrest man for violation of New Jersey state firearms
laws when they found that he possessed a handgun, that the gun was licensed in
another state, and that he was a resident of another state. Bowser v. Borough
of Freehold, #03-3386, 99 Fed. Appx. 401 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
There was probable cause to arrest a man in
connection with a reported robbery at a convenience store after a clerk
identified him as someone who had arrived and left in a vehicle with two other
customers who threatened the clerk and displayed a handgun after the clerk
refused to let them take cigarettes without paying. Lee v. Minute Stop, Inc.,
No. 1012303, 874 So.2d 505 (Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a woman when
he entered a bingo hall and observed her fighting with another woman in the
middle of a crowd of people. The officer could only act on what he knew, and
did not have any knowledge as to which woman had initiated the fight, or
whether the arrestee was at fault. His use of pepper spray to stop the fight
was not an excessive use of force under the circumstances. Esters v. Steberl,
No. 03-506, 93 Fed. Appx. 711 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Ex-mayor's verbal threat to ex-dogcatcher
to "get you," yelled out a car window as he drove by, did not provide
probable cause to arrest him for assault because there was no threatening
gesture and no threat of imminent harm. Officer who consulted with prosecutor
before making an arrest was entitled to qualified immunity, but prosecutor was
not, since no reasonable prosecutor could have believed there were grounds for
an arrest. Kijonka v. Seitzinger, #03-3158, 363 F. 3d 645 (7th Cir. 2004).
[2004 LR Aug]
Federal appeals court overturns $288,000
attorneys' fee award against police officer who settled a false arrest claim
for $10,000 rather than undergo a new trial on damages following a jury award
of $1 in nominal damages. Because the result achieved was a private settlement,
rather than a court judgment, the plaintiff was not a prevailing party entitled
to any attorneys' fee award at all. Petersen v. Gibson, No. 02-4271, 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 11735 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
There were genuine issues of fact as to whether
minister was arrested on three occasions solely for the words he spoke, and
whether those words were constitutionally protected free speech or unprotected
"fighting words" which provoked hostile crowd reactions threatening
to cause riots. The arrestee is a evangelist who believes that his mission is
to bring the gospel to college students and on these occasions, he went to
various events or locations, preaching and, in one instance, carrying a sign
stating that "Fornicators and drunkards will join Tupac in hell,"
referring to deceased "rap" musician Tupac Shakur, and allegedly, on
one occasion, called female students "Catholic whores." City,
however, was not shown to have failed to adequately train officers on First
Amendment rights, as it taught officers to protect individual rights to free
speech limited only by threats to the safety of the public. Victory Outreach
Center v. Melso, 313 F. Supp. 2d 481 (E.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a motorist
on charges of driving with a suspended driver's license based on information in
the city's computer indicating that the license had been suspended for failure
to pay a fine. There was nothing to indicate to the officer that the computer
information might be false. Evans v. City of New York, 308 F. Supp. 2d 316
(S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
The mere fact that a Virginia implied consent
statute gave police officers the right to ask that drivers submit to blood or
breath tests when suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol did not
give a driver a right to demand a blood test or breathalyzer. Motorist could
still properly be arrested, in the absence of such tests, on the basis of the
arresting officer's observations of the driver's speech, alertness,
coordination, and ability to follow instructions. Edwards v. Oberndorf, 309 F.
Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Va. 2003). [N/R]
There was probable cause for arrest of a minor
for "criminal mischief" based on officer's observation out of his
window of minor kicking and ramming into a car, causing its alarm to sound,
after the same alarm had sounded three or four times during the previous
half-hour. Campbell v. Moore, #01-3474, 92 Fed. Appx. 29 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Arrest and conviction for failing to identify
himself by name while detained by an officer, in violation of a Nevada state
statute requiring persons stopped to provide such identification, did not
violate arrestee's Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist.
Court of Nevada, #03-5554, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4385. [2004 LR Jul]
Probable cause existed to arrest two 14-year-old
boys days after Columbine High School shootings for allegedly threatening to
bomb their own school or bring guns to shoot to kill other students. Students
were properly removed from school and detained in juvenile facility for the
weekend on the basis of other students' accounts of their statements, and an
admission by one of the two boys that the other had been making
"joking" references to Columbine. Williams v. Cambridge Board of
Education, #02-3200/3207, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10951 (6th Cir.) [2004 LR Jul]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
pedestrian after he refused to accept and sign a jaywalking citation the
officer attempted to give him. Robinson v. City of Miami, No. 3D02-2560, 867
So. 2d 451 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Sheriffs' deputies had probable cause to arrest
couple for "remaining in a place for the purposes of prostitution,
lewdness, or assignation" based on their conduct at an adults-only
"swingers club." Subsequent dismissal of the charges did not alter
the result, and sheriff's proposed interpretation of the statute, i.e., that a
law enforcement officer present may be the "sole person offended to
establish the offensiveness element required to prove lewdness," was at
least arguable under current Florida law. Mailly v. Jenne, No. 4D03-2195, 867
So. 2d 1250 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer could reasonably believe he had
probable cause to arrest a man for child abuse based on telephone call from a
woman who described the suspect as striking a child across the head with his
hand, and then grabbing her by the back of her overalls and slinger her into a
van. The fact that the information came over the telephone initially, rather
than in person, did not make the information inherently unreliable when the
woman identified herself during the call, gave her address, and stated that she
worked for the local public schools. Mitchell v. City of Tulsa, No. 02-5044, 90
Fed. Appx. 273 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff
for trespass and obstructing governmental administration when he failed to obey
an order to leave a store parking lot in which a fight occurred, but instead
again approached the officer and store patrons involved in the fight, seeking
to obtain information about how to contact them. Berger v. Schmitt, #03-7898,
91 Fed. Appx. 189 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Trial court properly reduced, by 20%, attorneys'
fees to be awarded to plaintiff arrestee who prevailed against one officer on
false arrest and abuse of process claims and was awarded $50,000 in
compensatory and $8,508 in punitive damages. Reduction was justified by the
fact that no evidence supported other claims which the plaintiff voluntarily
withdrew one week prior to trial, and that the jury returned a verdict against
the plaintiff on claims for malicious prosecution and battery. Green v. Torres,
No. 02-7658, 361 F. 3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Motorist's stipulation, in criminal proceeding,
that there had been probable cause to arrest her for felony assault with a
deadly weapon, a car, in a "road rage" incident, barred her pursuit
of lawsuit for unlawful arrest. The stipulation either had a collateral
estoppel effect, totaling barring the claim, or else, at the very least, was
admissible in the case as an admission by the plaintiff, which could serve as a
basis for summary judgment. Additionally, her continued pursuit of her civil
lawsuit after signing the stipulation was sufficient to enter a finding that
the lawsuit was maintained in bad faith, resulting in an award of attorneys'
fees and costs to defendants. Salazar v. Upland Police Department, Nos.
E032557, E033447, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 22 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004). [N/R]
New York state harassment statute, when applied
to the mailing of written materials on religious and political issues found
"annoying" by a candidate for Lieutenant Governor to whom they were
sent, was violative of the First Amendment. Court enjoins enforcement of
statute against arrestee with respect to his further mailing of First Amendment
protected materials. Factual issues as to whether police detectives violated
clearly established rights, however, prevented summary judgment on the issue of
qualified immunity from liability. Vives v. City of New York, 305 F. Supp. 2d
289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
City could not be held liable on the basis of alleged
conspiracy by individual police officers to violate his civil rights in
connection with his arrest on homicide charges, in the absence of any evidence
of a city policy that caused the alleged violations. Additionally, officer had
probable cause to arrest plaintiff based on eyewitness's identification of him
as the killer both from a photograph and in a lineup, particularly in light of
inconsistencies in suspect's explanation of his whereabouts on the date of the
crime. Brown v. City of New York, 306 F. Supp. 2d 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Inoperable tag light on truck gave officer a
basis for a traffic stop, and subsequent "belligerent and
confrontational" behavior by motorist provided probable cause for a
custodial arrest. Officer's use of Taser gun to accomplish the arrest was not
excessive force under the circumstances. Draper v. Reynolds, #03-14745, 2004
U.S. App. Lexis 9498 (11th Cir.). [2004 LR Jun]
Deputy sheriffs had adequate probable cause to
arrest bail bondsmen for burglary and assault based on their observations and
two-hour investigation of incident in which they allegedly forced their way
into woman's home and slapped her in the course of revoking her bond. Anderson
v. Cass County, Missouri, No. 03-2409, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8798 (8th Cir.).
[2004 LR Jun]
While the statute of limitations for an
arrestee's false arrest Fourth Amendment claim would normally start running
from the date of the arrest, a federal appeals court rules that if plaintiff
was arrested and prosecuted solely on the basis of narcotics
"planted" by the arresting officers, the statute would not start to
run until the charges were dismissed. Wiley v. City of Chicago, #03-1490, 361
F.3d 994, rehearing denied, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7456 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004
LR Jun]
"Consent" to enter a home, procured by
an officer's false statement that police had a warrant, did not constitute
"consent" at all. Arrest of suspect inside home without consent or a
warrant following such an entry would be improper. Hadley v. Williams,
#03-1530, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9446 (7th Cir.). [2004 LR Jun]
Officers had probable cause to arrest husband for
violating court order of protection based on wife's statements, which they had
no reason to doubt the veracity of. Coyle v. Coyle, 302 F. Supp. 2d 3 (E.D.N.Y.
2004). [N/R]
Probable cause was present for issuance of
tickets charging individuals with disorderly conduct when they refused to leave
a state park beach after entering through the water rather than a designated
land-based entrance, as there was a rational basis for the regulation
prohibiting entry from the water, and the disorderly conduct statute, which
prohibited disobeying a lawful order of a police officer was not
unconstitutionally vague. Federal appeals court declines to decide whether the
issuance of the tickets constituted a Fourth Amendment "seizure."
Dorman v. Castro, #02-9026, 347 F.3d 409 (2nd Cir. 2003), upholding 214 F.
Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity from
false arrest lawsuit by hotel employee arrested for burglary of hotel rooms.
The arrestee had worked at the hotel during the hours when the burglaries
occurred, a credit card stolen from the rooms was used at a store near the
employees home, and the arrestee owned a black down jacket similar to the one
worn by the suspect in a store surveillance tape. Under the circumstances,
reasonably competent officers could disagree as to whether there was probable
cause to make an arrest. Colon v. Ludemann, 283 F. Supp. 2d 747 (D. Conn.
2003). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause for arresting driver
of vehicle when he himself admitted driving on despite receiving multiple
signals from officers in fully-marked police vehicle directing him to stop his
car. This, combined with duration of pursuit, was sufficient to give officers
grounds to believe that he willfully attempted to flee or elude the officers in
violation of a city ordinance. Glass v. Abbo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Mich.
2003). [N/R]
Motorists
from New York and surrounding states could not pursue claims for false arrest
on the basis of the alleged failure of the state Department of Motor Vehicles
to adequately keep track of motorist's changes of address, so that they were
allegedly unaware that their drivers' licenses had been suspended. McGuire v.
City of New York, 301 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [2004 LR May]
Complainant's signing of statement accusing
individual of issuing a bad check gave police officer probable cause to arrest
him. Wasilewicz v. Village of Monroe Police Department, 771 N.Y.S.2d 170 (A.D.
2d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Losses that individual allegedly incurred as a
result of wrongful incarceration on narcotics charges, including loss of
employment and wages, were "personal injuries," rather than injuries
to the plaintiff's business or property, so that he was not able to bring a
lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1964(c) against city officials and police officers who allegedly conspired
to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute him. Guerrero v. Gates, #02-56017,
357 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Ticket scalpers arrested by Milwaukee police
outside sports arena and kept in custody for between three to fourteen hours
for processing did not show any violation of their civil rights, despite the
fact that violation of the ticket scalping ordinance was punishable only by a
fine. Chortek v. City of Milwaukee, No. 03-1329, 356 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2004).
[2004 LR Apr]
There was no probable cause to arrest a husband
for violation of a domestic protection order for attending church services at
the same church his wife attended, since that was not prohibited by the order.
Officer who did not read the order or otherwise attempt to ascertain its
contents was not entitled to qualified immunity. Beier v. Lewiston, #02-35516,
354 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
Officer had at least arguable probable cause to
arrest mother for obstruction of justice when she refused to let him in to
serve court order concerning custody of her youngest child, which was based on
allegations of neglect. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and there
was no clearly established law against him attempting to gain entrance by a
ruse that he merely needed to hand her the papers, without revealing that he
would immediately also take the child into custody under the terms of the
order. Storck v. City of Coral Springs, No. 02-16956, 354 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.
2004). [2004 LR Apr]
Arrestee who was awarded $1 in nominal damages on
his claim that a police officer improperly arrested him for exercising his
freedom of speech in putting him under arrest for disorderly conduct after he
shouted at the officer for refusing to move his illegally parked personal
vehicle was a prevailing party entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under
Massachusetts state statute. Trial court awarded $45,451.36 as reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses. Norris v. Murphy, 287 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D. Mass.
2003). [N/R]
An arrestee who was suing several cities and
police officers to recover damages for alleged misconduct, including false
arrest, in the course of an investigation into alleged "scams" to
defraud elderly women was entitled under Louisiana law to add a city's
liability insurance carrier as a defendant and was entitled to a jury trial
against the insurer. A state law prohibition against a jury trial on claims
against a political subdivision did not apply to the political entity's
liability insurer. Smith v. City of Lake Charles Police Department, No. 03-155,
858 So. 2d 869 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2003). [N/R]
The alleged damage to an arrestee's ability to
earn a living that stemmed from a purportedly false charge and false conviction
for assault with a deadly weapon did not qualify as an injury to "business
or property" as required to establish a claim for damages against a police
officer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq. Diaz v. Gates, #02-56818, 354 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest suspect
when complaining witness stated that the arrestee had stabbed him several times
with an awl during an argument and that the arrestee was the aggressor.
Additionally, the arrestee's subsequent indictment for assault created a
presumption of probable cause for the arrest which the plaintiff arrestee
failed to overcome in his false imprisonment and malicious prosecution lawsuit.
Jenkins v. City of New York, 770 N.Y.S.2d 22 (A.D. 1st Dept. 2003). [N/R]
State trooper who had probable cause to arrest
motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) was entitled to
summary judgment in motorist's subsequent false arrest lawsuit, even if he did
not have probable cause for other offenses charged, such as leaving the scene
of an accident or driving at an unsafe speed. "Probable cause is not
needed on each and every offense that could be charged, probable cause is only
needed for one of the offenses that may be charged under the
circumstances." Ankele v. Hambrick, 286 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
[N/R]
Police officers' decision to make a warrantless
arrest of an elementary school principal for allegedly obstructing an officer
by hindering an arrest of two students for fighting was a discretionary action
under Georgia law, entitling them to official immunity from liability for false
arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, so long as the plaintiff
could produce no evidence that her arrest had been the result of malice or an
intent to injure her by the officers. Reed v. DeKalb County, No. A03A1083, 589
S.E.2d 584 (Ga. App. 2003). [N/R]
Police officer was not shown to have used
investigative techniques in child abuse investigation that were "so
coercive and abusive" that he knew or should have known that they would
yield false information. Officer had probable cause for arrest of suspect even
if portions of his affidavit supporting the arrest were inaccurate as to the
number of child victims who had told the officer the arrestee had sexually
abused them. Gausvik v. Perez, No. 02-35902, 345 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2003).
[2004 LR Feb]
Officers acted unlawfully in seizing a man at a
gas station when they were on the way to executing a search warrant at his residence
and transporting him to the site of the search, without probable cause to
arrest him. Arrestee awarded $4,000 in actual damages and punitive damages of
$20,000 by jury. Pappas v. New Haven Police Department, 278 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D.
Conn. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
Arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a french
fry in a D.C. rail transit station in violation of a rule prohibiting eating
and drinking there did not violate her rights. Federal trial court rejects
"equal protection" attack on alleged policy of mandatory arrest for
juveniles violating the rule in lieu of issuing citations that might have been
issued to an adult violating the rule. "Zero tolerance" rule towards
juvenile violators of the rule was rationally related to rehabilitating delinquent
juveniles and notifying and involving their parents in the process. Hedgepeth
v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, 284 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2003).
[2004 LR Feb]
Officers had probable caused to arrest the driver
for obstruction of traffic and search the vehicle when he was found
"asleep" at the wheel of his car in the street at an intersection
during rush hour. There was no violation in arresting him for both obstruction
of traffic and possession of a controlled substance even if they didn't know
what the powdery substance found in the vehicle was. Ochana v. Flores,
#02-2227, 347 F.3d 266 (7th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
Probable cause existed to arrest store customer
for disorderly conduct when he repeatedly attempted to devise a way to "thwart"
store's policy granting only store credit for returned merchandise and refused
store manager's request to leave the property and police officers' orders to
move away. Epstein v. Toys-R-Us Delaware, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (S.D. Fla.
2003). [N/R]
Report prepared by employer's loss prevention
executive, detailing his lengthy investigation into suspected employee theft
provided police detective with enough information to establish probable cause
to arrest employee. Means v. City of Atlanta Police Department, No. A03A1384,
586 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. App. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee could not pursue false arrest or due
process claims against former deputy chief, on the payroll of drug dealer, who
allegedly had him arrested and convicted on the basis of evidence planted by
dealer who suspected that the arrestee was a federal informant. The arrestee
was engaged in regular deliveries of drugs, and there was no evidence that the
deputy chief had knowledge that the evidence was planted at the time of the arrest.
McCann v. Mangialardi, No. 02-2409, 337 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
Whether arrestee's detention for 72 hours before
an arraignment for a probable cause hearing violated his rights depended on
whether he was being held pursuant to his warrantless arrest for drunken
driving or on the basis of a warrant from another jurisdiction, as detention on
the warrant would not require a probable cause hearing within 48 hours.
Arrestee also presented a viable claim that he was subsequently improperly
imprisoned for failure to pay a fine and court costs following his conviction
for drunken driving, without inquiry into his ability to pay. Alkire v. Irving,
#00-4567, 330 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
Statements by witnesses and bar bouncer,
and officer's own observation of laceration on bouncer's head provided probable
cause to arrest female bar patron for alleged assault on bouncer, despite her
argument that the bouncer had assaulted her and that she claimed there were
other witnesses who could support her version of the incident. Summary judgment
granted for municipal defendants. Maxwell v. City of New York, 272 F. Supp. 2d
285 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Under federal law, an indictment "fair upon
its face, by a properly constituted grand jury" is dispositive as to
whether there was probable cause for an arrest, so that police officers
indicted on charges of tampering with records could not pursue false arrest
civil rights claim. There was, however, a genuine issue of fact as to whether city
officials engaged in retaliation against the officers in violation of their
First Amendment right to express opinions about a matter of public concern,
requiring further proceedings on that claim. Bakos v. City of Olmsted Falls,
No. 02-3399, 73 Fed. Appx. 152 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Officer could have reasonably believed that he
had probable cause to arrest a juvenile female for evading detection when she
drove away as he ran up behind her vehicle calling out "police,
stop," after seeing people begin to flee from the area around her vehicle
when he shined a spotlight on it. Officer was therefore entitled to qualified
immunity for making an arrest, but there were genuine issues of fact precluding
summary judgment as to whether or not he was justified in using deadly force in
firing at the tire of her vehicle after she allegedly pulled to the right,
nearly striking him, as he ran alongside the vehicle. Flores v. City of
Palacios, 270 F. Supp. 2d 865 (S.D. Tex. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's guilty plea to a charge of resisting
arrest barred his federal civil rights claim against the officers for
purportedly arresting him for disorderly conduct and assault without probable
cause. Case v. Milewski, No. 01-3803, 327 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
U. S. Supreme Court to review whether it violates
the Fourth Amendment for a state law to require that a person identify himself
to a police officer or else face arrest. Hiibel v. Dist. Court., No. No. 38876,
59 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2002), cert. granted, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct.,
No. 03-5554, 2003 U.S. Lexis 7710 (Oct. 20, 2003). [2003 LR Dec]
Failure to provide a woman with a judicial
hearing on probable cause until 72 hours following her warrantless arrest on
drug charges violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so that
defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, and the arrestee's alleged
involvement in an ongoing drug investigation was not an extraordinary
circumstance that could justify the delay. But officers' conduct in transporting
and detaining the arrestee's two-year old daughter along with the arrestee
while she cooperated with attempting to make a controlled drug purchase was not
a clearly established civil rights violation. Cherrington ex rel. Cherrington
v. Skeeter, No. 01-3637, 344 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Dec]
Arrestee's chanting of words in protest of police
requirement that persons seeking to attend a protest rally submit to a pat down
search, including "two, four, six, eight, fuck the police state," was
constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment for which he could
not face arrest for disorderly conduct in the absence of any evidence that his
words presented a "clear and present danger" of a violent reaction by
the crowd. Arresting officer, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from
liability, since he believed that the arrestee was trying to incite the crowd,
which had become disorderly the previous day. Spier v. Elaesser, 267 F.
Supp. 2d 806 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Man arrested by mistake during investigation of
theft of water from a city fire hydrant failed to show that his arrest was
caused by any city policy or custom. Federal appeals court overturns jury award
of $1 in nominal damages and in excess of $90,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Zuniga v. City of Midwest City, No. 02-6076, 68 Fed. Appx. 160 (10th Cir.
2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Warrantless arrest of resident during execution
of valid search warrant for her home did not violate her rights, based on evidence
found, which officers believed, at the time, was crack cocaine. Officers
earlier violated federal criminal statute by pretending to be census workers,
but such conduct cannot be the basis for a federal civil rights claim. Frison
v. Zebro, No. 02-2226, 339 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Officer had probable cause to arrest suspect
following discovery of what he believed to be crack cocaine during a lawful
investigatory detention. Officer was not liable for alleged deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of arrestee who subsequently died from a
drug overdose caused by ingesting cocaine, since the officer did not see the
arrestee swallow it, the arrestee denied swallowing drugs, and the officer did
summon paramedics when the arrestee became ill. Weaver v. Shadoan, No. 01-5656,
340 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Assuming, without deciding, that an officer's
issuance of citations for "enticement" to a motorist was a Fourth
Amendment seizure, it was reasonable, based on statements by two young boys
that a man resembling the motorist had asked them if they wanted a ride home
and by one of the boys giving the license plate number of the motorist's truck,
along with the motorist's admission to having spoken to the boys. Appeals court
also rejects plaintiff's claim that he was subject to racial discrimination as
black person by the issuance of the citation. "Generic evidence that 44%
of the people arrested in his county are black," although they constitute
only 11% of the population, standing alone, "does not indicate a
discriminatory effect in arrests generally, and it certainly does not indicate
a discriminatory effect with respect to the specific ordinance at issue in this
case." Jefferson v. City of Omaha Police Department, No. 02-3085, 335 F.3d
804 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Dentist was not unlawfully "seized" by
officers who refused to leave his office until he made himself available for
service of process in a civil lawsuit concerning his tenancy, since the mere
acquisition of jurisdiction by a court over a person in this manner is not a
Fourth Amendment "seizure." The argument that the method of service
did not comply with Missouri state law would not alter the result. Williams v.
Lu, No. 02-3475, 335 Fed. 3d 807 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Decision of state court in criminal proceeding
declining to find that arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by
officers arresting and searching him in undercover drug operation barred him
for relitigating the issue again in a federal civil rights lawsuit against
undercover and arresting officers, so that lawsuit was barred by the defense of
collateral estoppel. The arrestee had an adequate opportunity to call witnesses
on the issue and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses at his criminal trial,
where it was determined that his arrest was lawful. Mitchell v. Hartnett, 262
F. Supp. 2d 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity
against arrestee's claim that taking him into custody for a misdemeanor
purportedly committed outside of the officer's presence was a violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights. As a matter of federal constitutional law, the U.S.
Supreme Court has left the issue open in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318
(2001), the trial court found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1974) expressly ruled that
warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside of their presence, even
if a violation of Maryland state law, do not violate the Fourth Amendment so
long as the arrest is supported by probable cause. Shultz v. Smith, 264 F.
Supp. 2d 278 (D. Md. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting a man for violating the terms of an injunction prohibiting him from
having any contact with or threatening another individual when he was told, in
responding to a 911 call placed from a restaurant, that the arrestee had been
there and raised his fist toward the protected man, and then confirming the validity
of the injunction. The disputed facts as to whether the deputy "did not
like" the arrestee or whether the arrestee had been served with the
injunction did not alter the result. Riebsame v. Prince, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1225
(M.D. Fla. 2003). [N/R]
New Jersey's two-year statute of limitations on
the filing of a federal civil rights lawsuit began to run on the day that a
police officer took his neighbor's son into custody and to the police station
for throwing rocks and dirt into the officer's swimming pool, even if the
plaintiffs did not then know their "legal rights," since they did
know that the incident took place. Simone v. Narducci, 262 F. Supp. 2d 381
(D.N.J. 2003). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest husband for
harassing his wife, even though both husband and wife told the officers that a
scratch on the wife was caused "unintentionally." Evidence that he
had taken something from his wife's hands in a manner that caused injury was
enough for the officers to make an inference that he had an intent to harass or
scare her, and officers, knowing that the husband had been making threats, did
not believe the wife's statements. Shortz v. City of Montgomery, 267 F. Supp.
2d 1124 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy's observation of woman's injuries and
receipt of her sworn statement accusing her boyfriend of assault were
sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest of her boyfriend, despite
any factual dispute about the woman's credibility. Probable cause for the
arrest precluded claims for both false arrest and malicious prosecution. Thomas
v. County of Putnam, 262 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
City's purchase of liability insurance did not
constitute a waiver of governmental immunity under Georgia state law for claims
against the city by an arrestee seeking damages for the actions of an officer
on the basis of purported false arrest and imprisonment, and malicious
prosecution, and the city's own alleged negligent hiring and retention of the
officer. Reese v. City of Atlanta, No. A03A0896, 583 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. App.
2003). [N/R]
Officer acted in an objectively unreasonable
manner in placing a man under arrest merely for being present at a drug raid on
the basis of unsubstantiated evidence that he had arrived there by riding in a
truck owned by someone else in which drug paraphernalia had been found. He was
therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, although supervising officer on
drug raid was, since his alleged approval of the arrest was not based on
anything other than a brief conversation with the arresting officer. Evett v.
Detntff, No. 02-40686, 330 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
Officers had probable cause to arrest wife of
police chief based on statements of witnesses that she had intentionally
accelerated her car towards them and that they believed she had tried to run
them down. The fact that the complainants had been involved in employment
litigation with the police department, her husband, or the arrestee did not
alter the result, nor did the failure of the investigating officer to interview
the arrestee or the police chief, a passenger in the vehicle during one of the
two incidents. Herman v. City of Millville, #02-2040, 66 Fed. Appx. 363 (3rd
Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for arresting a woman for either possession of stolen property or
"obstruction" merely on the basis that she had a diamond ring and
wanted to walk away to call her husband when they told her they thought it was
stolen. Officers had no information other than an unsubstantiated statement
from a "local felon" admittedly involved in the theft who had also
admittedly lied to them earlier in the investigation. Thompson v. Wagner, No.
02-1918, 319 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
Federal appeals court grants judgment as a matter
of law to African-American high school basketball coach arrested by police
officer solely for calling him a "son of a bitch." Arrestee's
statement did not constitute "fighting words," and were therefore protected
by the First Amendment. Officer also did not, prior to the arrest, have
reasonable suspicion sufficient to detain the coach for an investigatory stop
on the basis of motel clerk's report of his "suspicious" behavior of
appearing nervous while drinking coffee and looking at newspapers in motel
office. Johnson v. Campbell, No. 02-3580, 332 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003
LR Oct]
Officers could have reasonably believed that they
had probable cause to arrest a golfer for a rape that took place in the area
despite the fact that the victim's relatively "generic" description
of her attacker did not identify all of his "distinctive" facial
features. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability.
Wrubel v. Bouchard, #02-1730, 65 Fed. Appx. 933 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Wildlife officers did not initially have probable
cause to arrest farmer during their investigation of the alleged illegal
killing of a deer out of season on his land, nor were they entitled to
qualified immunity for doing so. They knew that they had no right to simply
enter onto private property and demand access, they had no search warrant to
look for any parts of the deer, and the reported crime they were investigating
had been completed so that no immediate action was required. Johnson v.
Wolgemuth, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [N/R]
Deputies did not have probable cause to arrest
motorist for either disorderly conduct or failure to identify himself. They
were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as no reasonable
officer could believe that motorist's actions in simply asking "what
for?" as he reached for his driver's license in responding to their
request gave the officers grounds for an arrest. Earles v. Perkins, No.
49A02-0206-CV-484, 788 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. App. 2003). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to make a
warrantless arrest of a woman on charges of leaving written bomb threats in her
workplace, based on expert evidence that she was more probably than not the
writer of the notes, her access to the places where the notes were found, and
the lack of any other apparent suspect. Valente v. Wallace, No. 02-2549, 332
F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
No reasonable officer could believe, federal
appeals court finds, that a motorist's actions in tape recording a traffic stop
without consent provided probable cause to arrest him for violating a
Washington state privacy statute, since the plain language of the law
prohibited only the recording of a "private" conversation. Alford v.
Haner, #01-35141, 333 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
There was probable cause for the arrest of the
plaintiff on the basis of two person's statements that he fired shots at them,
as well as statements by two neighbors that they saw him fire a gun into the
air after running into the street. Price v. Cochran, No. 02-3213, 66 Fed. Appx.
781 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
A police officer could have reasonably believed
that he had probable cause to arrest a woman at a motel for use of a stolen credit
card after the motel reported such use and, when he went to the room, the
occupant refused to let him see the credit card that she had used to pay for
the room. Federal appeals court reinstates jury's verdict for the defendant
officer in the arrestee's false arrest lawsuit, overturning the trial judge's
$4,000 judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff. Passage v. DeLoach, No.
01-6123, 64 Fed. Appx. 504 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Police officer could not reasonably have believed
that she had probable cause to arrest a woman for obstructing official business
or assaulting an officer by pointing her finger at the officer in the course of
an argument in the woman's kitchen about the officer's questioning of the
woman's daughter. Officer was therefore not entitled to qualified immunity from
liability. Lyons v. City of Xenia, Ohio, 258 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Ohio. 2003).
[N/R]
Allegedly coercing a woman facing cocaine charges into
performing oral sex for money with another police officer as part of a sting
operation to arrest the officer on soliciting for prostitution charges may have
been a battery and violated the woman's due process rights. Federal appeals
court holds, however, that officer who allegedly fraudulently threatened woman
with 40 years sentence if she did not cooperate was entitled to qualified
immunity, since it would not have been obvious to a reasonable officer that
this violated her constitutional rights. Sting operation against officer did
not violate his rights. Alexander v. Deangelo, #02-3124, 329 F.3d 912 (7th Cir.
2003). [2003 LR Aug]
Sheriff's deputy had probable cause to arrest
father for alleged rape of his teenage daughter despite her history of drug
abuse and the discovery of a "to do" list she wrote which listed
framing her father for "abuse (sexual or physical?)" as one of her
"tasks." The daughter had reported the alleged rape within 24 hours
of the incident, and medical evidence was consistent with a rape occurring
within the reported time frame. Donovan v. Briggs, No. 01-CV-62071, 250 F.
Supp. 2d 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
Attorney's arrest for accepting cocaine drugs
from undercover officer in purported exchange for legal services did not
violate his Fourth Amendment or due process rights. Prosecutor and officers
were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their arrangement of
"sting" operation. Anderson v. Larson, #02-2071, 327 F.3d 762 (8th
Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
Man arrested under warrant based on confidential
informant's information failed to show that the insertion of allegedly omitted
details or the elimination of doubtful assertions would have "materially
affected" the existence of probable cause for the arrest. Defendant city
and officers were therefore entitled to summary judgment. Wychunas v. O'Toole,
#Civ.A 301-0557, 252 F. Supp. 2d 135 (M.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
Police officers had probable cause to arrest man
for murder after grand jury indicted him for the crime. A facially valid
indictment from a properly constituted grand jury is "conclusive" on
the question of probable cause for an arrest. Norman v. City of Bedford
Heights, Ohio, #01-3870, 61 Fed. Appx. 129 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
When the trial court found, in a criminal
proceeding, that probable cause existed for the defendant's arrest, she was
barred by "issue preclusion," (the defense of collateral estoppel)
from asserting in a subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit following her
acquittal on the underlying charges that she was illegally arrested without
probable cause. Crumley v. City of St. Paul, Minn. No. 02-1257, 324 F.3d 1003
(8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's state law false arrest and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims accrued on the date of his arrest and
his federal civil rights claim for arrest without probable cause accrued, at
the latest, on the date he was sentenced, rather than on the date that his
conviction was subsequently invalidated nine years later. Arrestee's claims
were all time-barred under two year Illinois statute of limitations. U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holding that a
federal civil rights claim for damages attributable to an unconstitutional
conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has
been invalidated did not apply to claims for damages resulting from false
arrest not made pursuant to a warrant, the court stated, citing Snodderly v.
R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2001). Day v.
Conwell, 244 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
Police officer had sufficient probable cause to
arrest a student on a charge of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon onto school
grounds based on school security guard's finding of a knife and gun in the
student's car in the parking lot, where the officer was a bystander. Butler v.
Rio Rancho Public School Board of Education, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D.N.M. 2002)
[N/R]
State trooper was entitled to qualified immunity
for arresting a motorist who refused to sign a reckless driving citation he
issued after observing the driver speeding in a large tractor truck on an
interstate highway in an area with hazardous conditions. Driver's subsequent
acquittal of reckless driving did not alter the result, as the trooper could
reasonably have believed that the charges were justified. Wood v. Kesler, No.
01-15827, 323 F.3d 872 (11th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
African-American mother and her friends stated a
viable claim for racial discrimination based on allegation that a police
officer, who she asked be sent to the scene after her children and herself
faced racial harassment and assault by white neighbor's children and neighbor,
only spoke to white residents when he arrived there, and then arrested three
African-Americans, allegedly for complaining that they were being ignored.
Hardy v. Emery, 241 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Maine. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
City was not entitled to summary judgment on
false arrest claim made by methadone clinic counselor seen handing a paper bag
to a person outside who was subsequently found in possession of methadone
bottle with someone else's name on it as well as heroin. Evidence submitted did
not clearly show knowledge of prior drug activity in the area or whether the
counselor was arrested before or after the drugs were found on the other
person. Giannullo v. City of New York, No. 02-7357, 322 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir.
2003). [2003 LR Jun]
Police officer had probable cause, under Iowa
law, to arrest a juvenile driver for refusal to sign a traffic citation based
on his disobedience of a direction to exit his vehicle to do so. State law
allows an officer to issue a citation in lieu of arrest under these
circumstances, but does not require him to do so. Lawyer v. City of Council
Bluffs, Iowa, 240 F. Supp. 2d 941 (S.D. Iowa 2002). [N/R]
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
arresting a man during a valid investigatory stop for refusing to identify
himself, charging him with interference with official acts. The issue of the
legality of such an arrest was not clearly established, and the federal appeals
courts are split on the issue, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kolender v.
Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), expressly declined to decide whether an arrest for
refusing to give one's name to the police violates the Fourth Amendment. Shepard
v. Ripperger, No. 02-1939, 57 Fed. Appx. 270 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Evidence showed that probable cause existed for
the arrest of the plaintiff on charges of impersonation of a law enforcement
officer while attempting to sell security alarm systems without a license. In
light of the absence of any constitutional violation by the officer, there also
were no grounds for liability on the part of the county or sheriff. Gantt v.
Whitaker, No. 02-1340, 57 Fed. Appx. 141 (4th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Probable cause did not exist to arrest an
individual for failure to disperse from private property when a state trooper
ordered him to do so. Statute under which he was arrested only applied to
disorderly conduct in public, as opposed to private places, and the language
concerning orders to disperse required that at least three persons be involved
in the conduct, but there were only two persons who refused to disperse when
the arrest occurred. Gardner v. Williams, No. 02-5363, 56 Fed. Appx. 700 (6th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Upholding jury verdict in favor of officer on
false imprisonment claim by motorist and passenger detained on suspicion of
drug offenses, Nebraska Supreme Court finds jury instructions adequate on when
an officer may arrest without a warrant. Nauenburg v. Lewis, No. S-01-576 655
N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 2003). [2003 LR May]
Probable cause did not exist to arrest television
news cameraman filming demonstration in support of 6-year-old Cuban refugee
boy. Arrestee, at the time he was seized, was in the process of complying with
police orders to get out of a street then blocked to traffic, and force used
appeared to be disproportionate to need. Durruthy v. City of Miami, 235 F.
Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2002). [2003 LR May]
Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on
a claim concerning the arrest of a social visitor to an apartment after a
search warrant had been executed there. The need for probable cause to seize
the visitor was "clearly established." Gregory v. Oliver, 226 F. Supp.
2d 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
Police detectives reasonably believed they had
probable cause to arrest a father for the 20-year-old murder of his daughter's
childhood friend because of the daughter's statements about her purported
eyewitness remembrance of the crime and statements from two other daughters
indicating that he was a violent pedophile. Franklin v. Fox, #01-15052, 312
F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Probable cause existed for the plaintiff's arrest
when he failed to disperse and challenged police authority to take others into
custody as part of an eight-person crowd in a parking lot, but there were
factual issues as to whether the plaintiff resisted arrest and whether the
officer's use of force in making the arrest was excessive. Burbank v. Davis,
227 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Me. 2002). [N/R]
Police officers had probable cause to arrest a
motorist for disorderly conduct after she failed to obey their order that she
move her car, which was blocking traffic after being involved in an accident on
a busy downtown street during a holiday festival. While motorist claimed that
she did not hear their request, she admitted to standing very close to the
requesting officer, and indeed had even claimed that he had "violated her
personal space." Brown v. Gilmore, #01-1749, 278 F.3d 362 (4th Cir. 2002).
[N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds $1.75 million
award to man arrested on serial rape charges following impermissibly suggestive
photo arrays and inconclusive police-canine identification which only led officers
to arrestee's building without singling out his apartment or him. Grant v. City
of Long Beach, #01-56046, 315 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
Participants in state authorized "needle
exchange" program could not be targeted for arrest for possession of
controlled substances based on drug residue remaining in a used needle or
syringe. Police officers also did not have probable cause to arrest an
intravenous drug user for criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument when it
was clear that he was a participant in the program. Roe v. City of New York,
232 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). (impermissible targeting of members of
needle exchange program for arrests); L.B. v. Town of Chester, 232 F. Supp. 2d
227 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). (lack of probable cause for arrest of member of needle
exchange program for criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument). [2003 LR
Apr]
No liability for arresting and prosecuting man
for housing code violation involving a badly fire damaged house "wide open
to trespassers" when arrestee held himself out as the property owner when
questioned, and did not even dispute the issue of ownership at his trial.
Plaintiff was released only after being convicted and serving eleven days of
his jail sentence, when it was finally determined that he was not the actual
property owner. Gorcaj v. Medulla, #01-1288, 51 Fed. Appx. 158 (6th Cir. 2002).
[N/R]
Arresting officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting man for possession of stolen motorcycle or for depriving
owner of use of motorcycle when the owner had not reported the motorcycle
stolen and offered to show the officer papers proving ownership prior to the
arrest. Daley v. Harbor, 234 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Mass. 2002). [N/R]
Detectives who had motorist arrested on charges of
striking one of them with her vehicle as they attempted to question her were
not entitled to summary judgment based on a state court's finding of probable
cause for the motorist's arrest at a preliminary hearing. The plaintiff, who
was later acquitted of the charges, was not barred from pursuing her claim that
the detectives lied about the incident based on the finding of probable cause,
when the focus of her claim was that they also lied previously to obtain her
arrest. Hinchman v. Moore, #00-2457, 312 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR
Mar]
Arrestee, in characterizing an officer as an
"asshole" did not say anything sufficient to place the statement
outside the protection of the First Amendment as "fighting words."
Additionally, even if the officer had probable cause to make an arrest for
violation of the city's civil disturbance ordinance, there would be no
justification for the arrest if the officer actually was motivated by
retaliation for the arrestee's statements prior to the arrest. Greene v.
Barber, #01-1247, 310 F.3d 889 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Mar]
Arrestee's wife was not falsely imprisoned under
Kansas state law or for purposes of a federal civil rights claim when officers
prevented her, for two hours, from reentering her house without an escort while
they waited to obtain a search warrant for the home following a valid arrest of
her husband for firing a revolver in an alleged aggravated assault. Price v.
Cochran, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2002). [N/R]
Transit police officer had a reasonable suspicion
that a rapid transit passenger had failed to pay his fare, justifying an
investigatory detention, when he observed him attempt to pass through a station
gate twice with the use of an automated farecard and be denied entrance both
times, and then saw him follow closely behind another passenger when he finally
made it through the turnstile. Martin v. Mendoza, 230 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md.
2002). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest television
set renters for retaining the set after the rental period without making added
payments, based on Ohio state statute making criminal depriving a person of
their property. Hogan v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 2d 802 (S.D. Ohio
2002). [N/R]
City properly denied defense and indemnification
of police officer when evidence showed that the officer acted for personal
rather than work related reasons in conduct that resulted in the arrest of two
female bar patrons after one of them allegedly rejected the officer's advances.
In the Matter of Schenectady Police Benevolent Association v. City of
Schenectady, 750 N.Y.S.2d 666 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Officer was not entitled to summary judgment on
liability for alleged false arrest when there was a material issue of fact as to
whether the arrestee was actually taken into custody solely because he
criticized the officer's conduct in arresting and allegedly beating another
person, and requested his badge and vehicle identification numbers, which would
have been protected speech. Baskin v. Smith, #01-1721, 50 Fed. Appx. 731 (6th
Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Indian tribe should be treated as a municipality
for purposes of a federal civil rights lawsuit by a newspaper reporter claiming
that his federal constitutional rights were violated by his arrest and removal
from tribal land by tribal police officers. Tribe could not be held liable
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the absence of any claim that a tribal policy or
custom caused the alleged injuries. Tribal police officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting reporter based on his refusal to leave meeting room
after a request by the chairman of the tribal executive committee that he do
so. Armstrong v. Mille Lacs County Sheriffs Department, 228 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D.
Minn. 2002). [N/R]
Evidence supported jury's determination that
state troopers' actions in arresting casino patron were extreme and outrageous
in a manner allowing an award of damages for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Trooper allegedly allowed security officer to pepper spray
arrestee while handcuffed and transported arrestee outside on cold winter night
dressed only in socks and underwear. Sabir v. Jowett, 214 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.
Conn. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
Officer's arrest of an attorney, made during his
protest of a state trooper's traffic stop of his client, was not unlawful
retaliation for the attorney's exercise of his First Amendment rights. The
lawyer's interference with the officer on the side of a busy interstate highway
and his attempt to leave the scene after the trooper informed him that he was
going to be issued tickets, gave the trooper probable cause to arrest him for
his conduct, even if the trooper was "arguably brimming over with
unconstitutional wrath." Abrams v. Walker, No. 01-2447, 307 F.3d 650 (7th
Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
Officer who had probable cause to arrest a
suspect for misdemeanor assault did not violate his rights by making a
warrantless arrest outside the door of his apartment, after the suspect stepped
outside as the officer instructed. Court rejects the argument that this
constituted an "inside-the-home" arrest for which a warrant or
exigent circumstances were required. Knight v. Jacobson, #01-15506, 300 F.3d
1272 (11th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
Dispute over whether arrestee continued to
protest loudly or lowered his voice after initial yelling when officer
confronted him over sleeping in the surgery waiting room in the hospital where
his daughter was going to be operated on barred summary judgment on false
arrest claim. Arrestee's activity in confrontation with hospital staff over his
sleeping in the waiting room was not, however, protected by the First
Amendment. Shevlin v. Cheatham, 211 F. Supp. 2d 963 (S.D. Ohio 2002). [N/R]
Arresting officer acted reasonably in relying on
reports, videotapes, public records and other materials prepared by private
investigators who had been hired by his superiors in making an arrest of an
injured correctional officer for allegedly continuing to collect job injury benefits
when he no longer qualified for them. The officer had no duty to conduct an
independent investigation into the materials provided by his superiors in order
to use them as the basis for an arrest, and was therefore entitled to qualified
immunity. Caldarola v. Calabrese, #01-9053, 298 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Arrestees could not pursue claim for damages
against officers who charged them with disorderly conduct when they refused to
leave a state park beach after entering through the water rather than a
designated land-based entrance, as there was a rational basis for the
regulation prohibiting entry from the water, and the disorderly conduct
statute, which prohibited disobeying a lawful order of a police officer was not
unconstitutionally vague. Dorman v. Castro, 214 F. Supp. 2d 299 (E.D.N.Y.
2002).[N/R]
The possibility that an arresting officer could
have reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest a hotel manager
for theft of petty cash deliveries was enough to provide him with qualified
immunity from liability for false arrest, despite the alleged access of other
hotel employees to the funds and the officer's alleged failure to interview
either the manager or other hotel employees before making the arrest. Robinson
v. Gerritson, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Ill. 2002).[N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest striking
phone company workers based on statements by non-striking employees that the
strikers had threatened them, along with a videotape viewed by one officer that
showed threatening behavior. Arrestees had no claim for false arrest. Moore v.
City of New York, 219 F. Supp. 2d 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Police dispatcher's report to officer that
motorist's vehicle had been reported stolen, even though later determined to be
erroneous, was sufficient to give officer probable cause to make a warrantless
arrest after stopping car for traffic violations. Miller v. City of Nichols
Hills Police, 42 Fed. Appx. 212 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Officers did not have probable cause to arrest teenager
in a car based on one anonymous phone tip that the car occupants had a gun and
a second tip, from an identified person, that the car occupants were
"dissing" an identified person. Marinis v. Village of Irvington, 212
F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
fisherman for use of illegally large cast nets, even if the formula that the
officer used for measuring circular nets was the incorrect formula. Officer
observed that the nets were very large and reasonably believed them to be of an
illegal size. Grix v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, No.
4D01-3492, 821 So. 2d 315 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2002). [N/R]
Arresting officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity because it was clearly established under Maryland state law that the
arrestee's small penknife was legal and could not be the basis for an arrest
for carrying a concealed weapon. Sorrell v. McGuigan, #01-1565, 38 Fed. Appx.
970 (4th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
Woman's apparent voluntary presence in a stolen
automobile provided officer with sufficient probable cause for an arrest.
Sanders v. City of Philadelphia, 209 F. Supp. 2d 439 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
Hispanic motorist who was a police officer did
not establish liability for false arrest or violation of equal protection based
on other officers stopping his vehicle when he was "driving erratically
and the passenger car door was opened while the car was moving." The
plaintiff showed no evidence that the officers were motivated by race or any
other impermissible bias. Gonzalez v. City of New York, No. 00-9520, 38 Fed.
Appx. 62 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Jury properly awarded $30,000 in compensatory and
$100,000 in punitive damages to 14 year-old African American boy arrested and
held in custody for ten hours without probable cause on suspicion of being a
"lookout" for a reputed drug house being searched pursuant to a
warrant. Officers had no real basis for charging arrestee as a drug lookout. Marshall
v. Teske, #01-2722, 01-2793, 284 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Oct]
Defense verdict returned for city and airport
personnel in false arrest lawsuit brought by lawyer who claimed false arrest
when she was denied boarding of an airplane and arrested for repeatedly saying
the word "bomb" while her oversized bag was searched at a security
checkpoint. Levin v. United Airlines, Inc., No. YC038405 (Los Angeles, Co.,
Calif. Superior Court), reported in The National Law Journal, p. B2 (July 15,
2002). [N/R]
Officer did not violate the rights of a man
attending the Timothy McVeigh trial for bombing the Oklahoma City federal
building when he handcuffed him, transported him two blocks away, and
questioned him, given the detainee's known criminal history, including arrests
for mob action and possession of explosives, and his prior temporary commitment
to a mental health facility. Officer's action was a valid investigatory stop
and not an arrest requiring probable cause. Federal court clerk was entitled to
absolute immunity for providing police officer with information about detainee
for purposes of courtroom security. Bell v. Manspeaker, #00-1415, 34 Fed. Appx.
637 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Sep]
Officers did not violate motorist's Fourth Amendment
rights by arresting him for obstruction of traffic and possession of a
controlled substance even if they did not know what the powdery substance found
in vehicle was. Officers clearly had probable cause for arrest for obstruction
of traffic when motorist was found "asleep" at the wheel of his car
in the street. Ochana v. Flores, 199 F. Supp. 2d 817 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
[2002 LR Sep]
Officers had probable cause to make an arrest for
disturbing the peace when the arrestee had interfered with a traffic investigation,
ignored instructions to return to a house, and used profanity in a loud voice.
Arrestee's subsequent acquittal did not alter the result. Merritt v. City of
Oakdale, No. 01-1533, 817 So. 2d 487 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause for arresting husband
for criminal contempt and harassment based on wife's written complaint accusing
him of violations of a protective order preventing him from being within 1000
feet of her. Officers had no reason to doubt the wife's claim that he had in
person threatened to kill her and burn her house down, and one of the officers
indicated that he conducted a personal investigation. Fulton v. Robinson,
#00-9547, 289 F.3d 188 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
City and officer were properly held liable for
$250,000 for making an arrest of a man in a washroom for "lewd
conduct" without probable cause. Arrestee's conduct fell short of giving a
reasonable officer grounds for an arrest, and damages were not grossly
excessive, based in part on arrestee's mistaken impression that he faced sex
offender registration if convicted of the offense. Fonseca v. City of Long
Beach, #00-56714, 33 Fed. Appx. 846 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
Police chief had probable cause to arrest a
motorist for several traffic violations, and his subsequent search of the
driver was incident to a lawful arrest and therefore did not violate the Fourth
Amendment. Burley v. Nichelini, #00-16098, 34 Fed. Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2002).
[N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest homeowner
for possession of stolen property based on anonymous "crime
stoppers'" tip that stolen lawnmowers were on her property, together with
discovery of one of the lawnmowers on the property and subsequent search that
resulted in finding of second stolen lawnmower and other stolen property at her
home. Subsequent court proceedings in which arrestee's husband pled guilty to
criminal charges and charges against her were dropped in exchange did not alter
the result. Reasonover v. Wellborn, 195 F. Supp. 2d 827 (E.D. Tex. 2001). [N/R]
Municipal employee who alleged that he was
threatened with arrest if he did not resign did not show a violation of equal
protection, since other former employees were not similarly situated, as they
were not facing possible criminal charges. Bligh v. Town of Bloomfield,
#01-7294, 33 Fed. Appx. 573 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
An arrestee had to file his false arrest lawsuit
within the applicable two year statute of limitations, despite the fact that
the federal court would not have acted on his claim while his state criminal
appeal arising out of the same incident was pending, since the cause of action
for wrongful arrest accrued at the time of the arrest. Lawsuit filed after two
year period was properly dismissed. Nesbitt v. City of Champaign, #01-3163, 34
Fed. Appx. 226 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Two environmental activists (including the estate
of one now deceased) awarded a total of $4.4 million in a lawsuit against three
F.B.I. agents and three police officers for false arrest in case where they
were injured when a homemade bomb exploded in their car. Arrest was based on a
claim that arrestees were transporting the bomb to use for a terrorist act
protesting the logging of redwood trees. Bari v. Buck, #911-01051CW, U.S. Dist.
Ct. N.D. Cal. June 111, 2002), reported in The New York Times, National Print
Edition, page A14 (June 12, 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
Officer was entitled to official immunity from
false arrest and assault lawsuit under Texas law based on his authority to
inspect the record of a commercial vehicle, since his decision concerning
whether to arrest the driver for failure to produce the record was
discretionary rather than ministerial. Kersey v. Wilson, # 2-01-226-CV, 69
S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
An officer was not liable for issuing a citation
finding a motorist at fault for an accident despite motorist's contention that
he did so in retaliation for the motorist having previously complained about
the officer. The officer's investigation still provided probable cause for the
issuance of the citation, based on the motorist's own admission, the other
driver's account of the accident, and the apparent damage to the vehicles. An
officer has qualified immunity to make an arrest or issue a citation when
either it was objectively reasonable to believe that probable cause existed or
reasonable officers could disagree on whether probable cause was there. Menon
v. Frinton, #01-7639, 31 Fed. Appx. 735 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest bar owner
for assault after bar patron told officer that owner had assaulted him and
officer observed blood on patron's lips and owner admitted having struck a
second patron. Officer, under these circumstances, was not required to investigate
the bar owner's version of the incident more completely before making an
arrest. Curley v. Village of Suffern, No. 99-9367, 268 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2001).
[N/R]
Jury award of $27,000 for arrestee overturned by
appeals court. Officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, a building
manager, following an argument with a tenant's boyfriend in which the boyfriend
told the officer that the plaintiff had hit him in the head with a pipe.
Drayton v. City of New York, 739 N.Y.S.2d 44 (A.D. 1st Dept. 2002). [2002
LR Jun]
Arrestee convicted of driving under the influence
of alcohol was barred from bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit against
arresting officer for false arrest arising out of the same incident, since an
award on this claim would imply the invalidity of the conviction, which had not
been overturned. Arrestee also could not pursue his due process claim for
alleged deprivation of property (money) by the arresting officer when adequate
state law remedies existed for this alleged intentional and unauthorized
action. Davis v. Schifone, 185 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Mass. 2002). [2002
LR Jun]
An arrestee who faced possible charges of
"throwing a deadly missile," and who subsequently pled guilty to
reduced charges of simple battery and resisting arrest could not sue officers
for wrongful arrest and detention, but could pursue claims for excessive use of
force and for officers entering his home to arrest him without a warrant. Moody
v. City of Key West, No. 3D01-123, 805 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2001),
rehearing denied (2002). [N/R]
Sheriff had probable cause to arrest public
accountant for alleged use of profanity at county board meeting after county
commissioner told him that accountant had violated an ordinance against such
expressions. Sheriff did not make an arrest, however, but merely asked
accountant not to leave until a videotape of the meeting could be reviewed, and
was entitled to qualified immunity even if this request could be considered a
seizure. Gonser v. Twiggs County, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (M.D. Ga. 2002). [N/R]
Officer's arrest of suspect, in November 1997 in
Michigan, for refusal to provide identification after being requested to do so
did not violate clearly established constitutional law. Arresting officer and police
chief were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Risbridger v.
Connelly, #00-2471, 275 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR May]
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
suspect for unlawful use of a credit card based on information provided by
retailer that an unauthorized person, the suspect, had used the card to order a
computer. Brown v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 736 N.Y.S.2d 671 (A.D. 2002).
[2002 LR May]
Louisiana appeals court upholds award of $200,000
in damages for police sergeant's action "without good cause" in
arresting high school principal for allegedly "obstructing" child
sexual abuse investigation. Principal contended that police personnel who
attempted to get child released to them by school did not identify themselves
as police and did not follow established school board policy for such releases.
Dumas v. City of New Orleans, No. 2001-CA-0448, 803 So. 2d 1001 (La. App.
2001). [2002 LR May]
Officers were entitled to investigate further
when man was found dressed only in his underwear in a van parked in a
"park and ride" lot at a transit terminal and stated "you caught
me" when officers approached. Suspect's action in trying to lock door to
the van and holding it closed when officers tried to remove him from the vehicle
for questioning gave officers grounds for an arrest for obstructing
governmental administration. Diehl v. Munro, 170 F. Supp. 2d 311 (N.D.N.Y.
2001). [N/R]
Reasonable officers could disagree as to whether
there was probable cause for arresting a motorist (who was a police officer)
for intoxicated driving after a traffic stop following the motorist's vehicle
being observed crossing the center and white lane-control lines, and after the
motorist appeared to fail a field sobriety test and refused to take a second
one. Fersner v. Prince George's County, Md., 138 F. Supp. 2d 685 (D. Md. 2001).
[N/R]
Arrested taxi passenger's claim that arresting officers
"were apparently prejudiced against" his Iranian nationality and
therefore "treated him inferiorly" was a "mere bald assertion
and conclusory statement" which failed to state a claim for national
origin discrimination. State troopers had probable cause for warrantless
misdemeanor arrest of passenger for allegedly cutting taxi seat with a sharp
object he was in possession of, but were not entitled to qualified immunity on
excessive force claim that they dragged him in handcuffs across the floor when
he had not resisted arrest. Tavakoli-Nouri v. State of Maryland, No. 0048, 779
A.2d 992 (Md. App. 2001). [N/R]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on claims that they made a suspected trespasser get into their patrol car,
drove him several miles outside of the city limits and then left him there
after throwing his shoes into the woods, warning him that he had a "long
walk" home and should consider "moving" to another city. Sampson
v. City of Schenectady, 160 F. Supp. 2d 336 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). [2002 LR Apr]
Railroad police officer did not violate
arrestee's Sixth Amendment rights by failing to inform her of the nature and
basis of the accusation against her when he handcuffed her and detained her on
platform of train station. Sixth Amendment rights are not triggered until the
government has "committed itself to prosecution," and here the arrestee
was ultimately not even removed from the place of her arrest to the police
station, but instead released when another passenger was identified as the real
offender. Spencer v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 99-C-8506, 141 F. Supp.
2d 1147 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
The arrestee's convictions at trial for
disorderly conduct, battery on an officer, and fleeing arrest conclusively
established that the officer had probable cause for the arrest, even though the
disorderly conduct and fleeing arrest convictions were overturned on appeal.
McGregor v. City of Olathe, Kansas, 158 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Kan. 2001). [N/R]
Police officer acted unlawfully in seizing
arrestee, even if he appeared "lost and confused," when an encounter
did not result in any reasonable basis for seizure or detention and arrestee
had exercised his right to end the voluntary encounter by walking away. "A
lost or confused individual is just as entitled to walk away from a police
officer as is an individual who" knows "where he is, why he is there,
and what he wants to do." A perceived threat to the officer after he had
already unlawfully seized the plaintiff who was trying to walk away could not
be used to justify the initial seizure. Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills, 159
F. Supp. 2d 693 (N.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
Police officer who arrived on the scene after the
arrestee had already been detained and subdued was justified, for purposes of
probable cause, in relying on information provided by other officers in
preparing a written arrest report and signing two felony complaints against the
arrestee. He was therefore not liable for an alleged violation of the
arrestee's rights. Scott v. Sinagra, 167 F. Supp. 2d 509 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest man for indecent
exposure in forest preserve after two women visiting the park reported seeing a
naked man "cavorting in the woods" in proximity to a group of
children and the arrestee was later identified by name to one of the witnesses.
Subsequent acquittal, based on lack of evidence of "lewd conduct,"
did not alter the existence of probable case to arrest. Pasiewicz v. Lake
County Forest Preserve District, No. 00-4270, 270 F.23d 520 (7th Cir. 2001).
[2002 LR Mar]
Officers did not have probable cause to arrest
female officer for "obstruction" of their investigation of her
boyfriend's apparent suicide when she did not physically interfere with them
but merely refused to give them her date of birth. Summary judgment in false
arrest lawsuit was still proper, however, since defendant officers did have
probable cause to arrest her on another, closely-related offense. Williams v.
Jaglowski, No. 00-2600, 269 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
New York intermediate appellate court overturns
$170,000 award in favor of arrestee who claimed he was falsely arrested and
prosecuted, and orders new trial. Trial court erroneous instructed jury that
the validity of a warrantless arrest depended on an ultimate finding that the
arrestee was guilty, rather than merely on a finding that probable cause
existed at the time of the arrest. Mucius v. County of Nassau, 733 N.Y.S.2d 458
(A.D. 2001). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to make a warrantless
arrest of a man for allegedly hitting his girlfriend, based on her accusations,
their observation of her "bruised and disheveled condition," and her
expressed fear of further harm. Statements by other individuals challenging the
truth of the girlfriend's version did not require the officers to forgo or
delay making the arrest. Richardson v. City of Boston, No. 99-P-170, 758 N.E.2d
629 (Mass. App. 2001). [N/R]
Arresting officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting a man for a rape committed at a golf course when the
facts showed only an eight-minute window of time in which he could have
committed the offense, the victim failed to identify him in a line-up, and her
description of her assailant did not include any of his "distinctive
facial" features. Wrubel v. Bouchard, 173 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Mich.
2001). [2002 LR Mar]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting suspect on drug charges after crack cocaine was found in
the trailer which he co-owned with his sister. Subsequent dropping of charges
after a third party also arrested pled guilty and accepted responsibility for
all drugs found did not alter the fact that officers, based on the totality of
the circumstances, acted reasonably in arresting the plaintiff at the time they
did so. Lea v. Kirby, 171 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2001). [N/R]
Officers lacked probable cause to arrest
photographer who was only observing and photographing "animal rights"
protest at convention center for failure to heed their "dispersal"
order; police chief could be held individually liable if he "knowingly
refused" to terminate a "series of acts" which led to the
arrest. Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 99-17319, 266 F.3d 959
(9th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Feb]
Officers had probable cause to arrest attorney
for obstructing their duties and resisting arrest when he interrupted, for
twenty minutes, their stop of his client for traffic violations and repeatedly
refused to return to his car, as well as claiming that he did not have to
supply his driver's license and insurance card because of his status as a
lawyer. Abrams v. Walker, #00C-5768, 165 F. Supp. 2d 762 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
[N/R]
Officer had probable cause to arrest a man for
threatening to strike another officer based on statements of the victim and two
of his co-workers. Hotaling v. LaPlante, No. 98-CV-901, 167 F. Supp. 2d 517
(N.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Woman arrested for alleged narcotics sale to
undercover officer stated a claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution
when she alleged that she did not meet the description of the suspect sought,
was arrested on the basis of an unreliable and suggestive one-person
"show-up" identification, and officers had a videotape of the subject
sought that they could have compared her appearance to. Hutchins v. Peterson,
No. 2:00-CV-457, 139 F. Supp. 2d 575 (D. Vt. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
Police officers did not need warrants to make
arrests for allegedly obscene nude dances performed in their presence. Furfaro
v. City of Seattle, #68971-7, 27 P.3d 1160 (Wash. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
346:157 Officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting homeowner for obstructing justice for objecting verbally
to their proposed search of the curtilage of his home, where they did not have
probable cause or a warrant to do so; his holding of a beer bottle on his own
property also did not support an arrest for "public" intoxication.
Rogers v. Pendleton, No. 00-2130, 249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001).
346:149 N.Y.C. police officers had probable cause
to arrest store manager for violating city ordinance prohibiting the sale of
toy guns that looked like real guns; fact that a portion of the toys were
colored red was insufficient to change result when ordinance was ambiguous
about how much of toy's surface had to be such a color in order to fall outside
prohibition. Khan v. Ryan, No. 99-CV- 2142, 145 F. Supp. 2d 280 (E.D.N.Y.
2001).
345:138 Deputy working off-duty as store security
guard was acting as a law enforcement officer rather than a store employee when
he arrested a customer outside the store for allegedly disturbing the peace;
store was not liable for deputy's actions, and deputy was entitled to official
immunity from customer's false arrest/malicious prosecution claims under Texas
law. Larkin v. Johnson, No. 14-98- 00789-CV, 44 S.W.2d 188 (Tex. App. 2001).
345:133 Married couple who triggered alarm when
they entered lit, apparently open convenience store were properly awarded
damages for false arrest and assault based on deputies treatment of them after
arriving on the scene and finding no evidence of crime; deputy used excessive
force against wife by spraying her twice in the face with "OC" spray
at close range; appeals court reduces damages awarded as excessive. Park v.
Shiflett, No. 00-1809, 250 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 2001).
345:134 Man's admission to officer that he had
bitten girlfriend's hand provided probable cause for a warrantless arrest; city
was entitled to summary judgment in false arrest lawsuit. Wallace v. City of
Albany, 725 N.Y.S.2d 728 (A.D. 2001).
344:120 Officer had arguable probable cause to
arrest flea market vendors for unlawful sale of goods with unauthorized
trademarks, based in part on low prices of goods bearing "Nike"
trademarks, and was entitled to qualified immunity; absolute immunity protected
a second officer from claims based on his testimony at preliminary hearing.
Scarbrough v. Myles, No. 00-14063, 245 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
344:120 $9.9 million settlement in lawsuit for
false arrest/imprisonment and defamation brought by couple arrested in their
home without a warrant and charged with multiple child sexual molestation
offenses, only to have most of their accusers recant that accusation even
before a preliminary hearing. Valentin v. County of Los Angeles, No. C529739
(Los Angeles Super. Ct.), reported in The National Law Journal, p. A13 (May 28,
2001).
342:83 Fourth Amendment does not forbid a
warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a seatbelt violation,
even though it is only punishable by a fine. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, No.
99-1408, 532 U.S. 318 (2001).
[N/R] Officer acted reasonably in believing that
he had probable cause for detainee's arrest when he was told by other officers
that he was seen running from abandoned vehicle which had been stolen from
highway patrolman shot by a suspect. Choi v. Gaston, #98-56854, 220 F.3d 1010
(9th Cir. 2000).
346:147 Alabama magistrate's action of mistakenly
faxing warrant recall order to police upside down, so that only a blank page
was received, was an administrative act not requiring the exercise of
discretion, so that she and the city which employed her were not entitled to
judicial immunity from false arrest/imprisonment lawsuit arising from
subsequent arrest under withdrawn warrant. Bayou La Batre, City of, v.
Robinson, No. 1990411, 785 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. 2000).
343:109 Entry into home was valid, based on
consent of 13-year-old daughter of couple, left to care for four minor
children; probable cause existed to make arrest for neglect. Gonzalez v. City
of Tampa, No. 99-1919, 776 So. 2d 290 (Fla. App. 2000).
[N/R] Evidence supported jury's verdict in favor
of officers on false arrest claim. Even if officer was trespassing on
arrestee's business property, the plaintiff's action in slamming the door on
the officer's hand was an unreasonable use of force which could support his
arrest for battery. Trial court erroneously denied defendant's request for
$27,000 in costs for computerized evidence used for presentation to jury,
further hearings on reasonableness required. Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove,
No. 98-2708, 211 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2000).
341:68 Officers did not violate the Fourth
Amendment in carrying out a warrantless arrest of a man for a misdemeanor
assault not committed in the officers' presence, federal appeals court rules.
Woods v. City of Chicago, No. 99-4069, 234 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2000).
340:54 Police officer had grounds for brief
investigatory stop of a vehicle, but once a search of the vehicle revealed no
evidence of criminal activity, taking the driver to the station and holding her
for hours while obtaining and executing a search warrant for her friend's hotel
room was unreasonable, as was seizing and detaining for hours her mother and
brother when they came to the station, in the absence of any evidence of their
involvement in any crime. Collins-Draine v. Knief, No. 98-789, 617 N.W.2d 679
(Iowa App. 2000).
340:53 New York appellate court reduces total
damages awarded for emotional distress, false arrest, and malicious prosecution
from jury's award of $250,000 to $135,000, including reduction in punitive
damages from $100,000 to $50,000. Lynch v. County of Nassau, 717 N.Y.S.2d 248
(A.D. 2000).
340:55 Arresting officers failure to fill out a
probable cause affidavit and submit it to a magistrate within 48 hours as
required by Louisiana law did not entitle arrestee to damages against sheriff
for his detention, as his admission within that period that he had violated his
parole provided grounds to hold him in continued custody. Colquitt v. Claiborne
Parish Sheriff's Dept., 765 So. 2d 471 (La. App. 2000).
339:46 Elderly father arrested for resisting
unexplained warrantless entry into his home by police officers was entitled to
$12,500 award for false arrest; no exigent circumstances supported the
warrantless entry into the residence to arrest his intoxicated son. Carter v.
City of Natchitoches, No. 00-349, 772 So. 2d 186 (La. App. 2000).
339:41 Officers' belief, based on complainant's
statements, that arrestee had pointed a gun at him gave them probable cause to
make an arrest; arrestee's ultimate guilt or innocence did not have any impact
on their right to arrest. Marks v. Carmody, #00-2037, 234 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir.
2000).
339:37 Police officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting a 17-year-old alien for failure to carry a "green
card," based on a request from an INS agent who told him that an offense
had been committed, despite the fact that federal law only criminalized such
failure for those over 18; officer could reasonably rely on INS agent's
knowledge of immigration law. Liu v. Phillips, No. 99- 2336, 234 F.3d 55 (1st
Cir. 2000).
338:20 Officers had probable cause to arrest a
man for allegedly attacking another man with a hammer when they observed the
other man bloody and battered, despite the arrestee's uncorroborated
protestations that he acted in self- defense. Moscoso v. City of New York, 92
F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
338:20 Officer had probable cause to make a warrantless
arrest for kidnapping based on statements by arrestee's ex-girlfriend that he
had seized her by force and taken her to a remote location against her will.
Kiser v. City of Huron, #99-3801, 219 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2000).
337:7 Federal trial court rules that motorist's
gesture of displaying his middle finger to an officer driving by was protected
First Amendment speech; officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and
could be held liable for arresting motorist for disorderly conduct. Nichols v.
Chacon, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Ark. 2000).
331:104 Similarity between teenage driver's
description (and the description of his vehicle) and that of a suspect sought
for assault provided officer with a basis to detain him for investigation;
victim's positive eyewitness identification of driver as the person who had
assaulted him provided officers with probable cause for an arrest, even though
identification later turned out to be mistaken. Meinert v. City of Prairie
Village, Kan., 87 F.Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Kan. 2000).
331:104 City hall steps were a "traditional
public forum" on which anti-abortion protester had a right to demonstrate
unless he impeded access to the building or violated a reasonable time, place,
and manner restriction; jury should have been instructed that he had this right
to demonstrate there and should not have been allowed to decide a legal issue
of whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting him.
Pouillon v. City of Owosso, #98-1967, 206 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2000).
332:118 Officer's belief that he had probable
cause to arrest occupant of apartment for burglary was not objectively
unreasonable when the building's owners had stated that the apartment was not
lawfully occupied, and the door's lock had been visibly broken; officer was
unaware of occupant's claim to be a lawful tenant when he arrested him. Snow v.
Village of Chatham, 84 F.Supp. 2d 322 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
333:134 Officer was justified in relying on
statements by employees of recreation park implicating restaurant employee in
theft of money from cash receipts, including their statements that the suspect,
when questioned, had confessed; arrestee's mere statement that "I didn't
do it," made to the officer while on the way to jail, did not defeat
probable cause for the arrest. Resendiz v. Miller, No. 99-30593, 203 F.3d 902
(5th Cir. 2000).
334:149 False arrest and malicious prosecution
claims against officers were time barred under Illinois law when filed more
than a year after the time the criminal case against the plaintiff had been
dismissed; dismissal with "leave to reinstate" did not, in any event,
constitute a final disposition of the case in favor of the criminal defendant,
as required to support a malicious prosecution claim. Woodard v. Eubanks, 94
F.Supp. 2d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
334:151 Once officers lawfully placed motorist in
an investigatory detention, he had no clearly established right to refuse to
identify himself or to leave the scene before the investigation was complete;
officers were entitled to qualified immunity for then arresting him, since they
could reasonably believe he was interfering with a lawful detention. Oliver v.
Woods, No. 98-4179, 209 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2000).
335:163 New York jury awards over $3 million to
51-year-old woman mistakenly arrested by undercover police officer as drug
suspect; $2.75 million of award was for alleged excessive use of force by
officer, who plaintiff contended did not identify himself as police and
$250,000 was awarded for false arrest. Morales v. Leone, U.S. Dist. Ct.
S.D.N.Y. October 5, 2000, reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p.
C26 (Oct. 6, 2000).
335:168 Police officers who forcibly broke down
the door to a man's apartment without a warrant and entered to arrest him for
domestic battery were entitled to qualified immunity; even though the facts did
not adequately indicate the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a
warrantless entry, they could reasonably have thought it did, based on a 911
call by a woman in the apartment which was twice disconnected. Sanders v.
Marovich, 102 F.Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
335:169 Jury award of $120,000 to New York
arrestee upheld when the identification of the suspect sought for a crime was
at issue; officers could not be said, as a matter of law, to have acted
reasonably in making the arrest. Mercado v. City of New York, 703 N.Y.S.2d 283
(A.D. Dept. 2000).
335:164 Plaintiff was entitled to the full
$40,000 in damages found by jury in false arrest case, despite jury finding
that he was 60% at fault for the damages for failure to identify himself; court
rules that, since jury also found that police had no basis to arrest plaintiff
at all, his failure to identify himself could not be used to reduce the city's
liability. Scott v. City of New York, 699 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct.
1999).
335:169 Thirty-minute detention of Hispanic male
in handcuffs in police vehicle constituted a "de facto arrest"
requiring probable cause, rather than an investigatory stop merely requiring
reasonable suspicion when he did not have the name or birthdate of the suspect
sought in a shooting and no weapon was found during a search. Melendez v.
Sheriff of Palm Beach County, No. 98-1869, 743 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. App. 1999).
[N/R] Alleged city policy allowing warrantless
arrests for misdemeanor offenses committed outside of an officer's presence did
not violate the Fourth Amendment. schmidt v. City of Lockport, Ill., 67 F.Supp.
2d 938 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
326:27 UPDATE Danish mother who left sleeping
infant outside restaurant in carriage was not falsely arrested, New York
federal jury finds, but still awards her $66,400 in damages for post-arrest
damages, including alleged police department practice of failing to advise
foreign arrestee of their right to seek assistance from their country's
consulate; $1 each awarded to woman and the father of her baby for strip
search. Sorensen v. City of New York, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., reported in The
New York Times, p. A23 (Dec. 15, 1999).
327:36 Police officer may assert that he had
probable cause for an arrest on a "related crime" as a means of
asserting a qualified immunity defense in a false arrest lawsuit, even if there
was no probable cause for an arrest on the charge initially made; officer did
not show, however, that "related crimes" were involved in his arrest
of plaintiff for failure to provide his name who was later charged with an
assault on a neighbor. Sheehy v. Town of Plymouth, #98-2080, 191 F.3d 15 (1st
Cir. 1999).
327:38 Positive eyewitness identification of
alleged armed robber shortly after robbery gave officer probable cause to make
an arrest; no liability for false arrest after charges were later dropped.
Mills v. Town of Davie, 48 F.Supp. 2d 1378 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
328:53 Judgment in first jury trial of $2 against
an arresting officer, rather than judgment in second jury trial of $2,150
against the city (and $67,000 in attorneys' fees) would be enforced when trial
court never explicitly granted a motion for a new trial; plaintiffs were
arrested for violating a city ordinance against residential picketing. Copper
v. City of Fargo, No. 98-2144, 98-2416, 184 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 1999).
328:54 Arrest of homeowner for interfering with
firefighters was supported by probable cause; his removal from his own
property, while a "seizure" of the property, was reasonable. Greene
v. David, 41 F.Supp. 2d 167 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
329:68 Man arrested for disorderly conduct by New
York state park police officer could not sue for false arrest or malicious
prosecution when a citation issued to him was "adjourned in contemplation
of dismissal," since this was not viewed as a termination in his favor
under state law. Bowles v. State of New York, 37 F.Supp. 2d 608 (S.D.N.Y.
1999).
332:119 Man who struggled with officers after
they attempted to get him to take a breathalyzer could not pursue false arrest
lawsuit when two of three charges against him were dropped pursuant to his
voluntary plea agreement. White v. Wortz, 66 F.Supp. 2d 331 (D. Conn. 1999).
329:71 Arrests and threatened arrests of anti-
abortion protesters on highway overpass for alleged violation of a state
statute prohibiting "loitering" violated their First Amendment rights
as overpass was similar to a public street and therefore a public forum;
officer was entitled to qualified immunity, however, as he relied on the
constitutionality of the statute, acted on the orders of his supervisor, and
believed that the protesters represented a hazard to traffic safety; no showing
of official policy or custom as required for municipal liability. Lyttle v.
Brewer, 77 F.Supp. 2d 730 (E.D. Va. 1999).
330:84 Jury properly heard evidence of alleged
affair between mayor and arrestee's wife, and trial court properly declined to
instruct jury that arrestee had a duty to submit to an arrest without
resistance even if it was unjustified; appeals court upholds awards totaling
$114,000 against police chief and mayor in lawsuit claiming that improper
arrest was made with excessive force based on a purely personal dispute between
mayor and arrestee. Goff v. Bise, # 98-2849, 173 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1999).
330:87 Police officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity for arresting female bail bondsman for first-degree burglary
and second-degree assault when they ignored exculpatory evidence that bondsman
had entered the house after being invited inside by a man she had come to
arrest with a valid arrest warrant for failing to appear in court after being
bonded out, and that she only wound up macing his grandmother because he used
her as a shield while trying to escape arrest. Womack v. City of Bellefontaine
Neighbors, #99-1302, 99-1303, 193 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 1999).
325:5 Officers acted reasonably in entering home
to make an arrest based on ten-year-old bench warrant for welfare fraud, even
though they also arrested suspect for alleged involvement in an assault in a
tavern; additional evidence also showed consent for entry, which would have
justified warrantless arrest. Greer v. Anne Arundel County, Md., 46 F.Supp. 2d
416 (D. Md. 1999).
325:7 Officer's observation of vehicle stopped
the night before, in which occupants had been minors smoking marijuana,
combined with observation of occupant returning to vehicle from liquor store
with large bag, provided him with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify
stop; finding liquor within gave him grounds to arrest minor occupants; officer
was entitled to qualified immunity for overnight detention of 17-year-old minor
held in jail because police officer father declined to accept custody of son.
Trzaskos v. St. Jacques, 39 F.Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 1999).
325:14 Officers acted reasonably in stopping
vehicle, ordering occupants out at gunpoint, handcuffing occupants, and placing
them in the back of police vehicle, based on radioed reports that gave them
reasonable suspicion that occupants had been involved in the possible shooting
of a security guard or police officer during a fight in a tavern parking lot;
detention for 30 minutes to an hour did not change investigatory stop into an
arrest. Houston v. Clark County Sheriff Deputy John Does, #97-3911, 174 F.3d
809 (6th Cir. 1999).
326:23 A finding of probable cause at a
preliminary hearing did not bar arrestee's later lawsuit for false arrest when
trial judge heard evidence not available to the police officer at the time of
arrest; plaintiff arrestee, therefore, was not barred from pursuing his federal
civil rights claim. McCutchen v. City of Montclair, #E022025, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d
95 (Cal. App. 1999).
323:168 Federal appeals court rejects claim that
a custodial arrest for violation of an ordinance punishable only by fine is
necessarily unconstitutional and unreasonable. Diaz v. City of Fitchburg,
#98-1899, 176 F.3d 560 (1st Cir. 1999).
323:168 Officers had probable cause to arrest
bank customer for attempting to cash allegedly "counterfeit" payroll
check, based on information supplied by bank that account on which it was drawn
was closed; fact that check later turned out to be genuine did not alter
result. Dang v. Ehredt, 977 P.2d 29 (Wash. App. 1999).
323:167 Police officer who made arrest of store
employee could rely on information supplied to him by store security and did
not need to make independent investigation or examine all documents in question
before arresting employee for alleged theft; city was not liable for false
arrest or malicious prosecution. Melder v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 731 So. 2d
991 (La. App. 1999).
323:165 Failure to provide interpreter to deaf
woman before officers arrested her was not disability discrimination; officers
had probable cause to make the arrest, did not arrest her because of her
disability, adequately conveyed Miranda warnings with a written statement, and
did not subject arrestee to custodial interrogation. Patrice v. Murphy, 43
F.Supp. 2d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 1999).
322:157 Statement of alleged kidnap victim that
she had been held captive in a residence and raped there, and that she observed
guns and stolen videos in the home, was sufficient, with other information to
support the issuance of two search warrants for residence, as well as the
arrest of a resident based on her positive identification. Carson v. Lewis, 35
F.Supp. 2d 250 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
322:155 Arrestee outside motor vehicle office
raised genuine issue of fact as to whether officers had probable cause to
arrest him for attempting to register stolen vehicle when he did not fit the
description of the suspect phoned in earlier by office employee, and another
man present in the office fit the description exactly. Robinson v. Clemons, 987
F.Supp. 280 (D. Del. 1998).
322:153 Officers lacked probable cause for arrest
of father who submitted four nude photos of his three-year- old daughter to a
photo lab for developing; mere nudity did not show "lewdness" and
daughter's explanation, during questioning, that her Daddy had helped her take
off her clothes, put a necklace around her waist, and told her to stand against
a wall was consistent with an "innocent act" as well as a criminal
act; malicious prosecution claim rejected because of an absence of a showing of
malice on officers' part. Galante v. County of Nassau, #QDS:72700764, N.Y. Sup.
Ct. (Nassau County), reported in New York Law Journal, (Feb. 16, 1999).
322:153 Danish couple who left sleeping infant
outside restaurant in carriage while going inside for drinks could sue officers
who arrested them for endangering child's welfare and who removed child from
their custody; malicious prosecution claim dismissed, however, since dismissal
of criminal charges against them was not unqualified. Sorensen v. City of New
York, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10927 (S.D.N.Y.).
322:152 Trial court rules that former police
officer who was awarded $3 million in jury trial over First Amendment, false
arrest, and emotional distress claims must accept a reduction in the award to
$150,000 or else face a new trial on damages; court overturns jury's false
arrest award. Mihalick v. Town of Simsbury, 37 F.Supp. 2d 125 (D. Conn. 1999).
322:148 Arrestee awarded $30,000 in damages
against officer for false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional
distress was also entitled to $193,361.25 in attorneys' fees and $3,987.20 in
costs, despite contingent fee agreement limiting attorneys' fees to 40% of
award; $3,000 in sanctions imposed against officer for failure to reveal
additional citizen complaints against him in discovery process; plaintiff did
not improperly strike males from the jury, since "gender-neutral"
reasons were given. Gaytan v. Kapus, 181 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
321:135 Ex-boyfriend, under court order not to
come within 100 feet of former girlfriend's apartment, had no legitimate
expectation of privacy inside it; he had no standing, therefore, to assert a
Fourth Amendment claim based on officers' warrantless entry into apartment to
arrest him for violating order; further proceedings ordered on whether officers
used excessive force in using dog against him. Washington v. St. Albans Police
Dept., 30 F.Supp. 2d 455 (D. Vt. 1998).
321:135 While West Virginia state law prohibited
an officer for making a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor which was not
committed in his presence, motorist arrested in apparent violation of this rule
by officer on the basis of radio report did not have a federal civil rights
claim; radio report gave officer probable cause for arrest, which was
sufficient under federal constitutional law. Wilcox v. Elliott, 39 F.Supp. 2d
682 (S.D.W.Va. 1999).
321:131 U.S. Supreme Court rules that city
ordinance allowing officers to arrest persons who refuse to disperse after
being observed loitering with a gang member in a public place was
unconstitutional and failed to provide adequate standards for law enforcement
discretion. Chicago, City of, v. Morales, #97-1121, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (1999).
320:120 Ninety-nine minute detention of motorist
stopped for speeding was not unreasonable when discrepancy between car tag
number and number on car rental agreement warranted further investigation, and
subsequent dog alerting to possible presence of drugs provided grounds for
search of vehicle. Rousselo v. Starling, 495 S.E.2d 725 (N.C. App. 1998).
320:120 Officers had probable cause to make
warrantless arrest of homeowner for disorderly conduct when he refused to sign
summons for disorderly conduct in order to promise he would appear in court on
the charge. Lukos v. Bettencourt, 23 F.Supp. 2d 175 (D. Conn. 1998).
319:105 Officer who arrested man for disorderly
conduct after he argued with four officers struggling to restrain and transport
an arrestee was entitled to qualified immunity; arguable probable cause for the
arrest existed under Illinois law. Humphrey v. Staszak, #97-2163, 148 F.3d 719
(7th Cir. 1998).
319:104 Officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting woman's ex-boyfriend after he refused to allow the
officers to exchange his car keys, which the woman had entrusted to the
officers, for a mattress she had left in his apartment two years before; officers
had no right to force him to make the exchange and no probable cause to arrest
him for "obstruction." Thornton v. City of Macon, #95-8672, 132 F.3d
139 (11th Cir. 1998).
318:87 Placing a correctional officer under
"house arrest" and handcuffing him during academy training exercises
was not a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes, since he was free
to object, regardless of whether or not doing so would have employment
consequences. Fournier v. Reardon, #98-1316, 160 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1998).
318:86 Officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting private investigator and his son for carrying concealed
weapons while transporting cash; officers knew that arrestees were entitled to
carry such weapons under state law and plaintiffs alleged that arrests were
made in retaliation for investigator's prior statements criticizing police
officers for providing such armed courier services themselves. Dietrich, Estate
of, v. Burrows, #97-3644, 167 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 1999).
317:71 Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop
man fleeing fast from him when police arrived at scene where a fight between
two men had been reported. Paine v. City of Lompoc, #96-55942, 160 F.3d 562
(9th Cir. 1998).
317:67 City could not be held liable for inadequate
training or supervision concerning arrests for disorderly conduct or proper use
of handcuffs when plaintiff failed to show a record of prior incidents which
would indicate deliberate indifference to a known problem. Gold v. City of
Miami, #96-5395, 151 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 1998).
316:51 Deputy sheriff did not violate any clearly
established federal right in taking elderly couple into custody after one of
them threatened suicide and refused to obey orders of court appointed guardian;
no liability for accompanying guardian and couple on air flight to another
state where guardian lived. King v. Beavers, #97-3295, 148 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.
1998).
315:43 Arrestee whose convictions for armed
robbery and murder were overturned on appeal because he was arrested without
probable cause could not sue arresting officers for malicious prosecution when
he did not claim that officers did anything improper to further his prosecution
following his arrest. Sneed v. Rybicki, #97-2256, 146 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 1998).
315:40 Officers not entitled to qualified
immunity for placing man in handcuffs for four hours during search of his
residence for evidence of crimes allegedly committed by co-resident; man
detained was not suspected of any criminal activity and indeed initially exited
home to assist officers when asked to do so. Heitschmidt v. City of Houston,
#97- 20316, 161 F.3d 834 (5th Cir. 1998).
314:24 Officers had arguable probable cause to
arrest street minister for disorderly conduct when he admittedly succeeded in
making himself heard "over traffic"; officers entitled to qualified
immunity from First Amendment claim when minister was not singled out because
of the content of his speech. Redd v. City of Enterprise, #95-6673, 140 F.3d
1378 (11th Cir. 1998).
314:24 Jury awards $160,000 each to two men
detained for three hours by officers after store employees reported that they
appeared similar to a drawing of robbery suspects in a "wanted"
poster; trial judge rules that awards were excessive and that $15,000 to each
plaintiff would be appropriate. Peterson v. County of Nassau, 995 F.Supp. 305
(E.D.N.Y. 1998).
313:11 Arresting officers' failure to give
arrestee Miranda warnings could not serve as the basis for federal civil rights
law; officers, who arrived at home in response to arrestee's own 911 call could
lawfully arrest him without warrant, upon probable cause. Cronin v. West
Whiteland Township, 994 F.Supp. 595 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
313:7 Statements by store security guards to
police officers that they suspected store customer of stealing ring were
insufficient to give officers probable cause for arrest when customer presented
receipts for all merchandise in her possession, officers could watch videotape
that showed them everything that security guards observed, and tape was
consistent with customer's story. Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc., #97-1047,
147 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 1998).
313:6 Officer had probable cause to arrest
motorist for failure to have insurance despite her presentation of unsworn
letter from insurance agent, dated the day before, stating that car was
insured; officer could properly rely on information in state's computer system
in absence of any showing that information in computer was improperly retained
though inapplicable through the fault of the system. Moscatelli v. City of
Middletown, 675 N.Y.S.2d 639 (A.D. 1998).
313:4 Jury's award of $13,000 for future pain and
suffering and failure to award any damages for medical expenses or past pain
and suffering required new trial on damages in case where jury found that
officer, although having probable cause for arrest, effected arrest in a
negligent manner which caused injury to arrestee. Restey v. Higgins, 675
N.Y.S.2d 725 (A.D. 1998).
289:6 Officer who arrested driver of vehicle for
disorderly conduct was not entitled, in trial of false arrest lawsuit against
him, to a full reading of the disorderly conduct statute to the jury; portions
of statute were not relevant to the factual circumstances of the arrest and would
have been confusing; "large" verdict against officer upheld. Parker
v. City of Nashua, New Hampshire, 76 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1996).
289:7 City of Philadelphia to pay almost $3.5
million to settle over 40 lawsuits brought by arrestees who claimed false arrests
by officers charged with corruption and planting drugs on suspects; city enters
into settlement in suit brought by civil rights organizations which will expand
supervision over officers. NAACP v. City of Philadelphia, U.S. Dist. Ct.
Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 4, 1996, reported in The New York Times, National
Edition, p. A9 (Sept. 5, 1996).
290:22 Man serving sentence for second degree
burglary after pleading guilty was barred by that plea from pursuing federal
civil rights lawsuit for arrest without probable cause; claims for malicious
prosecution and officer's alleged false testimony could not be pursued when
plaintiff's conviction and sentence had not been overturned. Williams v.
Schario, 93 F.3d 527 (8th Cir. 1996).
291:40 Trial court erroneously awarded damages to
man arrested by New York police based on erroneous information that there was a
warrant for his arrest in Maryland; New York state could not be held liable on
"negligence" theory in such circumstances when trial court ruled
there was probable cause for the arrest, which barred false arrest and
malicious prosecution claims. Heath v. State of New York, 645 N.Y.S.2d 366
(A.D. 1996).
292:55 Observation of exchange of money for
envelope at "drug-prone location" established probable cause for
arrest, entitling officer to summary judgment in false arrest lawsuit. Yi v.
City of New York, 643 N.Y.S.2d 123 (A.D. 1996).
292:55 Children of father allegedly improperly
arrested and imprisoned for thirty months could not assert constitutional claim
for interference in family relationship; Florida appeals court, however,
certifies question to Florida Supreme Court for further examination. Garcia v.
Reyes, 677 So.2d 1293 (Fla. App. 1996).
293:71 Police officer did not have probable cause
to arrest woman's ex-husband for violating domestic violence protective order
barring him from a certain section of town; statute authorizing such protective
orders did not criminalize violations of such restrictions, but only of
restrictions such as committing further domestic violence or entering a
protected person's residence. Jacques v. Sharp, 922 P.2d 145 (Wash. App. 1996).
294:87 Nevada Supreme Court overturns $12,500
award to arrestee for false imprisonment; officer had probable cause to arrest
plaintiff and any possible error in setting the amount of bail for the
arrestee, resulting in more time in jail until he could post bail, was not the
fault of the arresting officer; court upholds $50,000 award for excessive force
in making arrest. Yada v. Simpson, 913 P.2d 1261 (Nev. 1996).
295:100 Federal appeals court rules that
officers' subjective motivation in arresting suspect for refusing to identify
himself, in violation of statute requiring motorist to do so, was irrelevant so
long as arrest was supported by probable cause; fact that officers already knew
motorist's name and may have been motivated by his refusal to cooperate with
their investigation of a bank robbery they suspected him of did not alter
result. Holland v. City of Portland, 102 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1996).
296:117 Uncorroborated informant's tip, standing
alone, did not provide officer with probable cause to arrest man for robbery;
arrestee, detained for five months without a lineup or photo display at which
victim of robbery could have either identified him or ruled him out as robber
asserted state and federal claims for false arrest and imprisonment. Ortega v.
Christian, 85 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1996).
296:118 Female motorist's repeated demands that
officer, who had finished pumping gas into his vehicle at service station, move
his "damn truck" gave officer probable cause to arrest her under
Texas statute prohibiting use of vulgar language tending to incite an immediate
breach of the peace. Spiller v. City of Texas City Police Department, 949
F.Supp. 486 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
297:134 Federal appeals court declines to turn
every allegedly "arbitrary" traffic stop into a potential
constitutional claim; arrest of stopped motorist for failure to sign individual
recognizance bond after receiving ticket was justified; mere fact that officer
was a different race than motorist stopped and arrested was insufficient to
make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Ford v. Wilson, 90 F.3d
245 (7th Cir. 1996).
297:135 Officers who were merely accompanying
arresting officer as part of on-the-job training could not be sued for false
arrest under federal civil rights statute when they had no real personal
involvement in the arrest. Brawer v. Carter, 937 F.Supp. 1071 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
{N/R} Officer had probable cause for suspect's
arrest on charges of reckless endangerment and unauthorized use of vehicle, but
not for charge of resisting arrest. Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563
(2nd Cir. 1996).
{N/R} Officer's action in stopping corporate
officer from entering company office did not constitute an arrest, nor was it a
seizure to prevent him from getting his personal belongings from the office.
Laughlin v. Olszewski, 102 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996).
{N/R} Guilty verdict for resisting arrest did not
show that officers had probable cause for arrest when verdict was later
reversed and dismissed on appeal. Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845 (2nd Cir. 1996).
283:109 Determination, in criminal proceeding,
that police officers' search of arrestee was unlawful did not bar officers or
city from contesting that issue in later false arrest/malicious prosecution
lawsuit brought by arrestee. Taveras v. City of New York, 635 N.Y.S.2d 608
(A.D. 1995).
280:60 Off-duty officer who arrested bar
"bouncer" for repeatedly hitting him in the face while holding his
head was entitled to qualified immunity from liability even if it were assumed
that officer threw the first punch in tavern altercation. Naccarato v. Oliver,
882 F.Supp. 297 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).
287:171 Alabama Supreme Court rules that
municipality may not be sued, under state law, for malicious prosecution, but
rejects argument that municipality was also immune from liability for false
arrest/imprisonment or assault and battery allegedly carried out by one of its
police officers. Franklin v. City of Huntsville, 670 So.2d 848 (Ala. 1995).
282:90 Arrest of man for writing with chalk on
sidewalk was not supported by probable cause; no "reasonable
officer," federal appeals court rules, could have thought that there was
probable cause to arrest man for violation of statute prohibiting writing on
property with "paint" or liquid or damaging property; factual issue
was created as to whether city had policy of neglecting to train officers to be
sensitive to citizens' First Amendment rights. MacKinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d
1002 (9th Cir. 1995).
284:118 Town was not entitled to disclosure of
arrestee's arrest record, despite his filing of notice to bring false arrest
lawsuit when charges against him had been dismissed, he had properly requested
physical destruction of the records, and Connecticut state law only allowed
disclosure of such records to a "defendant" in a pending lawsuit.
Connecticut, State of, v. Anonymous, 654 A.2d 1241 (Conn. App. 1995).
287:168 Arrestee who was receiving psychological
treatment at VA Hospital and was perceived as a "drunk" stated a
claim for disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act
when he alleged that deputy who arrested him denied him proper police
protection and fair treatment due to his psychological and alcohol problems.
Barber v. Guay, 910 F.Supp. 790 (D. Ms. 1995).
287:166 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting man for murder based on statements of his acquaintances
who were present in his apartment the same evening as the killing during an
argument that involved the murder victim; officers were not required to wait to
make an arrest supported by probable cause in order to interview alibi
witnesses offered by arrestee, and could not be held liable, under federal
civil rights statute, for mere negligence in post-arrest investigation of
crime. Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995).
280:54 Officer's arrest of veteran at festival for
taking photographs of undercover officers was not based on even
"arguable" probable cause; while photographs "could" have
been used by biker gangs or organized crime to carry out prior death threats
against particular undercover agents, there was no information linking veteran
to such threats or to any other crime; officer was therefore not entitled to
qualified immunity. Williamson v. Mills, 65 F.3d 155 (11th Cir. 1995).
279:36 Deputies who took minor daughter into
custody to give to father despite mother's display of later court decree giving
her custody were not entitled to qualified immunity. Henderson v. Mohave
County, Arizona, 54 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 1995).
278:20 Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that
deputies did not have probable cause to arrest man for obstructing
investigation because he refused to identify himself, but finds that deputies
were entitled to qualified immunity because law on the subject was not clearly
established at the time of the arrest. Henes v. Morrissey, 533 N.W.2d 802 (Wis.
1995).
277:3 County Sheriff's Department liable for
$15.9 million for raid by 100 deputies on Samoan/American bridal shower at
which deputies allegedly falsely arrested 36, used excessive force, and shouted
racial epithets. Dole v. County of Los Angeles Sheriffs, No. C751398, L.A.
Superior Central Ct., Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 16, 1995, Vol. 108 no. 167 L.A.
Daily Journal (Verd. & Stl.), p. 4.
277:7 Eyewitness identification of suspect as the
shooter in a murder provided probable cause for arrest and prosecution;
officer's alleged subsequent failure to talk with witnesses presented by
arrestee's parents did not negate probable cause at time of arrest. Dukes v.
City of New York, 879 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
278:23 Arresting officer had probable cause to
arrest woman for driving stolen truck based on reliable information provided by
informant and woman's inability to produce vehicle registration; alleged
violation of state statute providing arrestee with right to telephone a
relative prior to being booked did not state federal civil rights claim.
Harrill v. Blount County, Tenn., 55 F.3d 1123 (6th Cir. 1995).
278:24 Louisiana Supreme Court overturns
negligent arrest liability award against officers; positive identification of
store customer by employee as involved in earlier robbery provided probable
cause for arrest, even though another store employee was later unable to
confirm this identification. Wolfe v. Wiener Enterprises, Inc., 648 So.2d 1293
(La. 1995).
279:39 Arrest made with probable cause, but in
alleged violation of Kentucky state law, did not give rise to valid federal
civil rights claim. Pyles v. Raisor, 60 F.3d 1211 (6th Cir. 1995).
279:39 State trooper did not violate motorist's
rights by stopping him for defect in taillight or in arresting him for refusal
to produce driver's license or otherwise identify himself. Fillmore v.
Eichkorn, 891 F.Supp. 1482 (D. Kan. 1995).
283:102 Federal appeals court rules, as a matter
of law, that woman's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was
arrested by officer after her husband and restaurant manager got involved in
dispute over whether a coupon presented entitled the couple to a discount on
the cost of their meal; court finds that dispute was civil, rather than
criminal and could not give rise to probable cause; further, dispute was
actually between restaurant and husband and there was no basis for charging
her. Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232 (9th Cir. 1995).
285:135 Full custodial arrest of business owner
for ordinance violation of not possessing a required business license was not
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights,
904 F.Supp. 828 (N.D.Ill. 1995).
287:169 Detention of a passenger in "Rodney
King" vehicle, which included pointing gun at him, handcuffing him, having
him lie on the ground, frisking him, placing him in police vehicle, and
questioning him, was a reasonable part of an investigatory stop under the
circumstances, federal appeals court rules, and did not constitute an arrest
without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Allen v. City of
Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 1995).
{N/R} Mother was not "seized" for
Fourth Amendment purposes during time when her daughter was being question at
police station or when officers took daughter and her to hospital. Gardiner v.
Incorporated Village of Endicott, 50 F.3d 151 (2nd Cir. 1995).
{N/R} False arrest and malicious prosecution
claims were improper, since arrestee's conviction had been upheld on appeal.
Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90 (5th Cir. 1995).
265:7 Police officers had probable cause to
arrest suspect on robbery charges based on eyewitness identification despite
fact that arrestee did not entirely meet description contained in earlier crime
report which they had not read. Stratton v. City of Albany, 612 N.Y.S.2d 286
(A.D. 1994).
266:23 Officer who entered motorist's home
without a warrant or exigent circumstances and then arrested her for
misdemeanor offenses arising out of accident with unattended car in parking lot
was not entitled to qualified immunity from suit; "minor offenses"
did not justify "extraordinary recourse of warrantless home arrest."
Howard v. Dickerson, 34 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1994).
266:23 Detention of woman, removal of her to
police station, and holding her there for four hours for fear she would warn
suspect that he was about to be arrested on criminal charges violated her
"clearly established" Fourth Amendment rights when she was not suspected
of any involvement in any crime; officers involved in the incident were not
entitled to qualified immunity. Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers, 15 F.3d 587
(6th Cir. 1994).
267:40 Fact that arrest by officer outside city
limits of his employer was not authorized under state law did not automatically
make such an arrest a violation of the Fourth Amendment, federal appeals court
rules; jury should have been allowed to determine whether arrest was
"reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Abbott v. City of Crocker,
Mo., 30 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 1994).
267:41 Probable cause existed for arrest on
gambling charges when deputy sheriff attended cockfight and placed wagers
there; later dismissal of charges in return for arrestee's promise not to run
gambling operations in the future provided no basis for suing county sheriff
for false arrest. McDougal v. Odom, 850 F.Supp. 784 (E.D. Ark. 1994).
268:54 Officers did not violate the Fourth
Amendment or First Amendment rights of dancers in "adult entertainment"
nightclub by making full custodial arrests of them for misdemeanor offenses
rather than simply issuing citations. Torrey v. City of Tukwila, 882 P.2d 799
(Wash. App. 1994).
268:55 Deputy sheriff could have reasonably
believed that he had probable cause to arrest farmer when marijuana was found
growing on his farm and it appeared that the plants were being harvested.
Bridgewater v. Caples, 23 F.3d 1447 (8th Cir. 1994).
269:71 Plaintiff's claims of false arrest,
malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were
properly dismissed when complainant's sworn statement and statements by her
family members gave officers probable cause to believe that plaintiff had been
exposing himself in his backyard; his later acquittal of criminal charges did
not negate probable cause at the time of the arrest and prosecution. Shapiro v.
County of Nassau, 609 N.Y.S.2d 234 (A.D. 1994).
270:88 Officers had probable cause for arrest of
landlady for shutting off tenants' water and denying them access to their
laundry machines in building's basement; officers did not just rely on tenants'
complaints but conducted their own investigation. Herron v. Touhy, 18 F.3d 421
(7th Cir. 1994).
271:102 Officer had probable cause to arrest man
for public intoxication based on his having trouble balancing himself, smell of
alcohol, and inability to state his name and birthdate; later evidence showing
that man was actually a diabetic suffering from insulin shock was irrelevant
when he did not tell officer of his medical condition and did not possess a
medical tag or bracelet which would have put officer on notice of it. Hirsch v.
Burke, 40 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 1994).
272:116 Jury awards $7,307,000 to two couples
arrested, without warrants, in their homes on child molestation charges which
later were proved to be unfounded; plaintiffs had previously been awarded $3.5
million in damages in bench trial, but county was granted jury trial after
appeal. Valentin v. County of Los Angeles, No. SEC529739, L.A. Calif. Superior
Court, April 12, 1995, reported in Los Ang. Daily Jour., (Verd. & Stl.),
Vol. 108, No. 76 (April 21, 1995).
272:117 Administrative inspection warrant did not
justify forcible warrantless entry into home to arrest homeowner. Alexander v.
City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1994).
273:136 Man taken into protective custody after
he refused to answer officers' questions was entitled to a new trial in federal
civil rights suit; jury instructions improperly interpreted Massachusetts state
statute as allowing his detention for the manner of his expressed disagreement
with the officers. Veiga v. McGee, 26 F.3d 1206 (1st Cir. 1994).
273:137 Reasonable police officers could not have
believed they had probable cause to arrest man who yelled "Get the hell
out of here" to undercover police officer disguised as intoxicated vagrant
who approached him three times asking him for money. Beech v. City of Mobile,
874 F.Supp. 1305 (S.D. Ala. 1994).
274:149 State criminal trial court's denial of
arrestee's motion to withdraw his guilty plea barred his attacking guilty plea
in civil rights/false arrest lawsuit in federal court. Respass v. N.Y. City
Police Dept., 852 F.Supp. 173 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
274:149 Officers' arrest of two women shoppers
based on store security guards' statements that they saw shoppers conceal
merchandise was based on probable cause. Upshaw v. McArdle, 650 So.2d 875 (Ala.
1994).
274:150 Plaintiff failed to state false arrest
claim when specific date of illegal actions was not specified, nor were
specific acts of officer claimed to be illegal pointed out. Barnett v. Moon,
846 F.Supp. 200 (N.D.N.Y. 1994).
275:167 Officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for arresting passenger in van stopped at border patrol checkpoint who
refused to identify himself; federal appeals court finds no "clearly
established" right under either the First or Fourth Amendment to refuse to
identify oneself during a lawful investigatory stop. Albright v. Rodriguez, 51
F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1995).
275:169 Officer liable for $500,000 in punitive
and $50,000 in compensatory damages in suit charging that she arrested a
motorist for intoxicated driving merely to obtain job rating points despite
tests which showed no alcohol in motorist's system. Grauer v. Donovan, U.S.
Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill., July 24, 1995, reported in Chicago Tribune, Sec. 2, p. 3
(July 27, 1995).
{N/R} Administrative decision that motorist
violated traffic law barred suit for false imprisonment because it established
that there was probable cause for the officer's arrest or motorist. Hugar v.
Nigro, 616 N.Y.S.2d 833 (A.D. 1994).
{N/R} Warrantless arrest of guest of squatters
for trespass did not violate guest's rights. Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate, 25
F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1994).
Officer's arrest of vehicle passenger was not
privileged, for purposes of false imprisonment lawsuit, when it was conceded
that search and seizure was unlawful and search and seizure provided the only
basis for the arrest. Ostrover v. City of New Yor, 600 N.Y.S. 2d 243 (A.D.
1993).
Sheriff made arrest pursuant to statutory
authority when probation officer gave him a written authorization indicating
that arrestee was a probation violator; sheriff was therefore not liable for
false imprisonment. Bunch v. Pitre, 618 So.2d 1062 (La. App. 1993).
Trial court's dismissal of criminal charges
against plaintiff at preliminary hearing did not establish whether or not
officer had probable cause at time of arrest; trial court in federal civil
rights lawsuit acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of the
dismissal of criminal charges. Anda v. City of Long Beach, 7 F.3d 1418 (9th
Cir. 1993).
Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable
seizures, rather than general due process protection was the correct legal
standard for civil rights/false arrest suit; award in favor of arrestee upheld.
Trial court properly resubmitted inconsistent special verdict answers to jury
with request for clarification when it at first stated that officer was
entitled to qualified immunity, but awarded damages against officer. Larson v.
Neimi, 9 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1993).
Hotel employee arrested for alleged theft of
carpet from premises could not sue officers and city for violation of civil
rights or false arrest/false imprisonment when officers had probable cause for
the arrest, at the time, based on eyewitness identifications, even though
identifications were later determined to be mistaken. Davis v. Tamburo, 849
F.Supp. 1294 (E.D. Ark. 1993).
City settles false arrest/civil rights/assault
suit by payment of $6.44 million to one plaintiff and $890,000 to a second, in
case where jury initially awarded $76.1 million. Papa v. City of New York, No.
15695/86 (July 13, 1994, Sup. Ct., Kings Co., N.Y.). reported in The Natl. Law
Jour. p. A19 (Aug. 22, 1994).
City liable for $4.8 million for death of suspect
who fled from scene of planned arrest when plainclothes officers drove their
car in front of his vehicle to block his possible escape; suit alleged that
city was liable in failing to either gather more information as to whether
arrest was justified, or for the manner in which the arrest was carried out.
Agresta v. Gillespie, 631 A. 2d 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Officers had probable cause to arrest man when
they were told that he had caused injuries to his wife which required calling
an ambulance. Dyer v. Sheldon, 829 F.Supp. 1134 (D. Neb. 1993).
Man arrested and allegedly beaten after his
girlfriend told officers she wanted him out of her apartment awarded $260,000
in damages against District of Columbia for false arrest and assault and
battery. District of Columbia v. Murphy, 631 A. 2d 34 (D.C. App. 1993).
State court judge's finding of probable cause for
arrest in a domestic violence case did not preclude the arrestee/husband, once
acquitted, of pursuing a federal civil rights claim for false arrest, but
appeals court finds that probable cause for the arrest existed. Simmons v.
Pryor, 9 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 1993).
Presence of woman's minor daughter at a police
station did not compel the mother's presence at the police station; police
officers also relied in good faith on school official's statement to them that
there was parental consent to take daughter to station. Gardiner v.
Incorporated Village of Endicott, 838 F.Supp. 32 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Man asked to leave closed university alumni
association board meeting despite possession of a "power of attorney"
from an absent board member was lawfully arrested when he refused to go.
Miranda v. Pres. & Directors of Georgetown College, 818 F.Supp. 16 (D.D.C.
1993).
Deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for
making warrantless entry and arrest of driver sitting in his vehicle in his
open garage for prior intoxicated driving. Baker v. Clover, 864 P. 2d 1069
(Ariz. App. 1993).
Suspect could not recover damages for his
warrantless arrest and failure to provide him with a full preliminary hearing
within 48 hours when a judge did review the basis for the arrest and found it
sufficient, within that time period, to issue an arrest warrant. Fiscus v. Cit
of Roswell, 832 F.Supp. 1558 (N.D.Ga. 1993).
Motorist's arrest for going through a stop sign
did not violate any federally protected rights; allegation that officer
concealed his presence at "stop trap" did not alter result. Schorn v.
Larose, 829 F.Supp. 215 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
Jury awards 3.6 million to woman taken into
custody as "emotionally disturbed person" who claimed officers came
to the wrong house, assaulted her, and falsely accused her of being a child
abuser; trial judge reduces award to $185,000. Ashendorf v. City of New York,
N.Y., Kings County Sup. Ct., No. 38589-87, Apr. 23, 1993, reported in 36 ATLA
L. Rep. 328 (Nov. 1993).
New Hampshire state troopers who arrested a
motorist for making an illegal lane change on the basis of a radio report by
another trooper did not violate any clearly established federal or state
standards in making the arrest and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity
from a civil rights suit. Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F. 2d 45 (1st Cir. 1993).
Article: False arrest - damages: Psychological
and legal aftermath of false arrest and imprisonment, by R. I. Simon, Bull.
Amer. Acad. Psychiatry & the Law 21(4), 523-8, 1993. A review of the
forensic psychiatric literature and legal cases. {N/R}.
Jury award of $76 million to two men mistakenly
shot at, beaten and arrested reduced by appeals court to $5,608,750.18. Papa v.
City of New York, 598 N.Y.S. 2d 558 (A.D. 1993).
Couple arrested by officers in shopping mall for
allegedly shoplifting a sweater awarded $1,000 each against arresting officers;
officers failed to find sweater either on couple or in other stores which they
entered. Coates v. Daugherty, 973 F. 2d 290 (4th Cir. 1992).
Elderly man arrested for playing chess on the
street for $2/game receives $100,000 settlement in false arrest suit against
New York City; chess game was not "gambling" since it was game of
skill rather than chance and chess board was not "gambling
equipment." Flom v. City of New York, N.Y. Sup. Ct., reported in The Natl.
Law Jour., p. 47 (May 10, 1993).
City practice of arresting homeless persons for
sleeping, eating and congregating in public places violated constitutional
right to travel and Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992).
Firefighter awarded $179,000 in damages for false
imprisonment based on police SWAT team's simulated "terrorist takeover"
of fire station designed to test and drill firefighters' response to such
incidents; firefighter was not informed that it was a drill and suffered
medical expenses, lost time from work, and mental pain and suffering. Schultes
v. Village of Addison, No. 89 C-7710, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., reported in
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, P. 20 (March 1, 1993).
Deputy liable for $700 for false
arrest/imprisonment of black customer skating rink asked to have arrested
without probable cause. Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway, 974 F. 2d 1408 (4th Cir.
1992).
Man's disarrayed clothing, including an open
trouser zipper, together with the statements of men struggling with him that he
had attempted to rape a woman found nearby unclothed and woman's own statement
asking that officers "get him away from me" gave officers probable
cause to arrest for attempted rape; $165,000 jury award overturned. Coleman v.
City of New York, 588 N.Y.S. 2d 539 (A.D. 1992).
Arrestee could not sue for Fourth Amendment
violation on the basis that his arresting officers were illegally appointed to
their jobs; under state law, they were still "de facto" officers
whose arrests were lawful. Malone v. County of Suffolk, 968 F. 2d 1480 (2nd
Cir. 1992).
Arrestee whose criminal conviction was affirmed
on appeal was barred from relitigating, in a federal civil rights suit, the
issue of whether there was probable cause for his arrest when issue was raised
in his appeal and Massachusetts state law would bar relitigation. Kyricopoulos
v. Town of Orleans, 967 F. 2d 14 (1st Cir. 1992).
Evidence of knife suppressed in criminal
prosecution as illegally seized was properly admitted into evidence in
arrestee's false arrest lawsuit against the city. McDaniel v. City of Seattle,
828 P. 2d 81 (Wash. App. 1992).
Existence of domestic protection order and wife's
complaint that husband had harassed her gave police a defense of
"privilege" against husband's false arrest claim. Dioguardi v. City
of New Rochelle, 578 N.Y.S. 2d 660 (A.D. 1992).
Woman's complaint that her ex-boyfriend sexually
assault her, combined with officer's observation of her demeanor and
boyfriend's wearing of clothes complainant described gave officer probable
cause to make an arrest. Fazzino v. Chiu, 771 F.Supp. 518 (D. Conn. 1991).
Trial court erred in instructing jury that
plaintiff had to show that officer specifically intended to violate his
constitutional rights in order to prevail on false arrest civil rights claim.
Caballero v. City of Concord, 956 F. 2d 204 (9th Cir. 1992).
Finding of probable cause at arrestee's
preliminary hearing barred relitigation of the question in later suit for false
arrest; arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability.
Hubbert v. City of Moore, Oklahoma, 923 F. 2d 769 (10th Cir. 1991).
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
warrant less arrest of man for four year old rape and murder. Simkunas v.
Tardi, 930 F. 2d 1287 (7th Cir. 1991).
Officers were not liable for false arrest of
suspect who claimed they planted heroin on his person, when officers discovered
another controlled substance in his truck. Avalos v. Mejia, 788 S.W.2d 645
(Tex. App. 1990).
Officers who obtained warrants for arrest of
doctor and search of his office were entitled to qualified immunity when
affidavits supported reasonable belief that doctor illegally prescribed
narcotics. Forster v. County of Santa Barbara, 896 F. 2d 1146 (9th Cir. 1990).
Arrestee's conviction, based on a guilty plea,
was a complete defense to a civil rights action for false arrest. Malady v.
Crunk, 902 F. 2d 10 (8th Cir. 1990).
Whether officers had probable cause to arrest
lingerie model for alleged indecent acts with bar patron was a question for a
jury to decide. Heller v. City of Ocala, 564 So.2d 630 (Fla. App. 1990).
Seizure of spectator at football game who cheered
for visiting team and allegedly caused disturbance which could lead to fight
was a reasonable investigatory detention and not an arrest; brief use of finger
hold on spectator when spectator's friends were being arrested was a reasonable
use of force. Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F. 2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990).
Four-year-old girl's statement, after she was
raped, that "daddy did this to me," together with other evidence,
provided probable cause for warrant less arrest. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F. 2d
1503 (11th Cir. 1990).
When officers had probable cause to make a
warrant less arrest, they do not need to also establish their "good
faith" to avoid liability for false arrest. Welch v. District of Columbia,
578 A. 2d 175 (D.C. App. 1990).
Appeals court overturns $25,000 false
imprisonment/malicious prosecution award based on allegedly
"negligent" failure to investigate arrestee's alibi. Taylor v. City
of Mount Vernon, 555 N.Y.S. 2d 409 (A.D. 1990).
Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain
woman at airport as suspected drug courier and should not have arrested her for
disorderly conduct for calling one of them an "ass hole". Buffkins v.
City of Omaha, Douglas County, Neb., 922 F. 2d 465 (8th Cir. 1990).
Probable cause to arrest suspect for robbery
ceased to exist once victim was unable to identify suspect as perpetrator in
on-the-scene viewing; arrestee entitled to recover for false arrest. Rodriguez
v. City of New York, 563 N.Y.S. 2d 1004 (Sup. 1990).
Arrestee's conviction on some of the criminal
charges on which he was arrested, affirmed on appeal, barred his civil rights
lawsuit against officers and city for false arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution. Dukes v. State of N.Y., 743 F.Supp. 1037 (S.D.N.Y.
1990).
Officers liable for illegal arrest of couple for
public intoxication without any intention of pressing charges; federal appeals
court reinstates civil rights claim against city for alleged custom of such
illegal arrests. Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F. 2d 845 (3d Cir. 1990).
Arrestee was barred from false arrest civil
rights suit by determination, in his criminal trials, that his Fourth Amendment
rights had not been violated. Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F. 2d 1267 (9th
Cir. 1990).
Mere denial by landlord that he had harassed
tenant did not eliminate officer's probable cause to arrest him based on
tenant's complaint. Craig v. Krzeminski, 764 F.Supp. 248 (D. Conn. 1991).
Panhandler's arrest under California's
anti-begging statute violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
officers were entitled to qualified immunity because of prior caselaw upholding
statute. Blair v. Shananhan, 775 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Cal. 1991).
Arrestee was falsely arrested, but jury awarded
no damages; jury could refuse to award anything when arrestee's uncorroborated
testimony of his anxiety was the only evidence of damages. Davet v. Maccarone,
775 F.Supp. 492 (D.R.I. 1991).
Officer acted reasonably in taking driver to U.S.
Attorney's office in federal building after driver refused to move illegally
parked car from federal lot and defiantly refused to provide identification;
officer's use of his finger to "poke" at driver to move him in
desired direction was not "excessive use of force." Perreault v.
Thornton, 781 F.Supp. 873 (D.R.I. 1991).
Jury awards $42,000 to misidentified man wrongly
arrested twice for a crime another man had committed. Wickes v. Maryland State
Police, Md. Kent County Cir. Ct., No. 1649-L, Oct. 29, 1991, reported in 35
ATLA L. Rep. 177 (June 1992).
Finding of probable cause in criminal proceeding
barred later suit for false arrest and imprisonment. Williams v. Divittoria,
777 F.Supp. 1332 (E.D. La. 1991).
Officers had probable cause to arrest man for
engaging in oral sodomy with woman his roommate assaulted when they did not
know that his participation was involuntary and due to threats aimed at him and
the woman. Cox v. County of Suffolk, 780 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
Officers who arrested father while attempting to
recover custody of child at request of mother were not entitled to qualified
immunity. Fonte v. Collins, 898 F. 2d 284 (1st Cir. 1990).
City not liable for false arrest on basis of
booking officer's allegedly inadequate investigation of reported robbery;
probable cause at time of arrest existed. Hamilton v. City of San Diego, 266
Cal. Rptr. 215 (Cal. App. 1990).
Arrestee could not sue for false imprisonment for
crime for which he was convicted. Restrepo v. Fortunato, 556 So.2d 1362 (La.
App. 1990).
Attorney arrested for refusal to give his name
and address to officer in courthouse awarded $75,000; his wife is awarded
$25,000 for emotional distress. Rodriguez v. Comas, 875 F. 2d 979 (1st Cir.
1989).
Man mistakenly arrested for bank robbery which
was filmed awarded $304,355; city liable for inadequate training Clipper v.
Takoma Park, 876 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1989).
Deputies not entitled to summary judgment in
arrest of police chief for alleged intimidating phone call to sheriff;
factually unclear whether arrest took place in his home Duncan v. Storie, 869
F.2d 1100 (8th Cir. 1989).
License suspension hearing finding that officer
had probable cause to stop motorist bars civil rights false arrest suit.
Terrones v. Allen, 680 F.Supp. 1483 (D. Colo. 1988).
Arrest of man for failing to register as sex
offender, based on inaccurate information, violated constitutional right, but
city not liable. Kirk v. Hesselroth, 707 F.Supp. 1149 (N.D.Cal. 1988).
Guilty verdict, even if later reversed on appeal,
barred false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims. Courtney v.
Rice, 546 N.E. 2d 461 (Ohio App. 1988).
Facially valid domestic violence protective order
provided probable cause for arrest; officer not liable. Otero v. Jennings, 698
F.Supp. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Traffic stop does not render driver in custody;
absence of valid driver's license supplied probable cause for arrest. Parker v.
Strong, 717 F.Supp. 767 (W.D. Okl. 1989).
Officer acted objectively reasonably in arresting
man for possession of stolen property upon encountering stop sign missing for
seventeen years. Krause v. Bennett, 887 F. 2d 362 (2nd Cir. 1989).
Deputies not entitled to summary judgment in
arrest of police chief for alleged intimidating phone call to sheriff;
factually unclear whether arrest took place in his home. Duncan v. Storie, 869
F. 2d 1100 (8th Cir. 1989).
Guilty plea in traffic case did not preclude
civil rights claim against officer for alleged arrest without probable cause.
Markwardt v. McCarthy, 717 F.Supp. 661 (E.D. Wis. 1989).
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for arrest of demonstrator on basis of the content of his sign. Kroll
v. U.S. Capitol Police, 847 F. 2d 899 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Woman arrested for child abuse awarded $112,000
in compensatory, $21,000 in punitive damages; officer did not sufficiently
investigate arrestee's version of incident. Sevigny v. Dicksey, 846 F. 2d 953
(4th Cir. 1988).
Applicant for driver's license was not falsely
arrested after refusing to leave licensing office. Wright v. State, 752 P. 2d
748 (Mont. 1988).
Determination of administrative tribunal that
there was a lawful arrest for intoxicated driving barred driver from bringing
lawsuit for false arrest. Coffey v. Town of Wheatland, 523 N.Y.S. 2d 267 (A.D.
1987). Two separate arrests of man by sheriff pursuant to facially valid
warrants did not establish violation of civil rights despite dismissal of both
prosecutions. Fair v. Fulbright, 844 F. 2d 567 (8th Cir. 1988).
$880,000 awarded to rental agent arrested on
charges of leasing premises to be used for prostitution; probable cause
lacking. Von Stein v. Brescher, 696 F.Supp. 606 (S.D. Fla. 1988).
Officer had probable cause to detain juveniles on
other child's uncorroborated accusation that suspects stole bicycle. Gerald M.
v. Conneely, 858 F. 2d 378 (7th Cir. 1988).
Father arrested to keep him from seeing daughter
on the eve of her wedding awarded $285,000 in damages, $115,866 in attorneys'
fees. Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F. 2d 196 (1st Cir. 1987).
Man allegedly arrested for joking about hijacking
airplane files fourteen count lawsuit; eleven counts dismissed as court warns
of possible sanctions. Bauge v. Jernigan, 669 F.Supp. 348 (D. Colo. 1987). City
and officer not liable for arresting motorist for lodging and sleeping in car;
ordinance not constitutionally over broad or vague. Hershey v. City of
Clearwater, 834 F. 2d 937 (ll th Cir. 1987).
County ordinance prohibiting massages of opposite
sex by licensed masseuse unconstitutionally vague. Bell v. Arlington County,
Va., 673 F.Supp. 767 (E.D. Va. 1987).
Officers had no probable cause to arrest
suspected robber on basis of anonymous note; $50,000 damages awarded. Lockett
v. City of Detroit, 417 N.W. 2d 531 (Mich. App. 1987).
Demonstrator was wrongfully arrested even if
permit system was valid, since officers arrested him on basis of content of his
sign. Kroll v. United States Capitol Police, 683 F.Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1987).
Only factual parts of internal affairs
investigation report admissible; opinions excluded. McQuaig v. McCoy, 806 F. 2d
1298 (5th Cir. 1987).
Bond forfeiture absolute defense to false arrest
suit. Neff v. Engle, 501 N.E. 2d 675 (Ohio App. 1986).
Detroit immune for police officers' intentional
torts. Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 363 N.W. 2d 641 (Mich. 1984).
Saying "damn" to officer no basis for
arrest; preliminary hearing does not estop section 1983 claim. Bailey v.
Andrews, 811 F. 2d 366.
Walking in middle of the street at night does not
provide reasonable suspicion to stop and detain for identification. Fields v.
City of Omaha, 810 F. 2d 830 (8th Cir. 1987). Citizen's intentions, without
actions, do not provide a basis to arrest; police not protected by qualified
immunity. McIntosh v. Ark. Repub. Party F. White Electrical Comm., 816 F. 2d
409 (8th Cir. 1987).
Federal Court refuses to grant summary judgment
to county investigator sued for arresting plaintiff without probable cause on
charges of murder; county and supervisors dismissed from suit. McKenna v.
Clayton County, State of Georgia, 657 F.Supp. 221 (N.D.Ga. 1987).
Arrest of woman for refusing to identify herself
during lawful investigative stop violated the fourth amendment. Martinelli v.
City of Beaumont, 820 F. 2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1987).
U.S. Supreme Court rules unconstitutional
ordinance making it illegal to interrupt a police officer in the performance of
his duties. City of Houston, Texas v. Hill, 107 S.Ct. 2502 (1987).
Arrest of men for masturbating in movie-viewing
booths in "adult" bookstore did not violate constitutional right;
policy of prosecutor to forgo prosecution did not change result. Czerniak v.
City of Milwaukee, 669 F.Supp. 247 (E.D. Wis. 1987).
Officer should have ascertained whether
complainant was actually a security guard. City of Jacksonville v. Alexander,
487 So.2d 1144 (Fla. App. 1986).
Police had grounds to arrest. Hansen v. Garcia,
Fletcher, Lund and McVean, 713 P. 2d 1263 (Ariz. App. 1986).
Judge determines no obscene remark was made to
officer. Dupas v. City of New Orleans, 485 So.2d 594 (La. App. 1986).
City liable for following court's bail schedule
instead of state law with respect to incarceration for minor offenses. Anela v.
City of Wildwood, 790 F. 2d 1063 (3rd Cir. 1986).
No liability for mistaking diabetic as being
drunk. Thompson v. Olson, 798 F. 2d 552 (1st Cir. 1986).
Chicago' s general detention order
unconstitutional. Robinson v. City of Chicago, 638 F.Supp. 186 (N.D.Ill. 1986).
Police not liable after prosecutor filed criminal
complaint, despite negligent police report. Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F. 2d l469
(9th Cir. 1986).
Officers had probable cause to arrest but
allegedly failed to inform driver he was under arrest. Sprague v. City of
Burley, 710 P. 2d 566 (Idaho, 1985).
Damages awarded, in part, because dismissal of
charges were not noted on computer. City of Miami v. Swift, 481 So.2d 26 (Fla.
App. 1985).
Evidence of indictment inadmissible to prove
probable cause. Reams v. City of Tucson, 701 P. 2d 598 (Ariz. App. 1985).
Hearing not required before suspension of
driver's license. Pempek v. Edgar, 603 F.Supp. 495 (N.D.Ill. 1984).
No liability for confining civil prisoner. Melone
v. County of Westchester, 491 N.Y.S. 2d 428 (A.D. Dept. 2 1985).
No liability for arrests made for nonpayment of
bus fares. Stebbins v. Washington Metro. Area Transit, 495 A. 2d 741 (D.C. App.
1985).
Officers not required to check property lines
before arresting for trespass. Bodzin v. City of Dallas, 768 F. 2d 722 (5th
Cir. 1985).
Plaintiffs arrested for sexual activity in adult
bookstore brings suit for harassment. Czerniak v. City of Milwaukee, 611
F.Supp. 192 (D.C. Wis. 1985).
Arrestee properly resisted unlawful arrest and
awarded damages. Lusk v. Roberts, 611 F.Supp. 564 (D.C. La. 1985).
Officer made proper investigation before arrest
for stolen car. Lindsey v. Loughlin, 616 F.Supp. 449 (D.C. N.Y. 1985).
Former auxiliary police officer awarded damages
for false arrest and assault. Ross v. Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, 479 So.2d
506 (La. App. 1985).
0fficer sued for mistakenly arresting suspect's
minor brother. Titus v. Newton Twp., 621 F.Supp. 754 (D.C. Pa. 1985).
Summons no basis for arrest; deputy liable.
Dennis v. Warren, 779 F. 2d 245 (5th Cir. 1985).
Special volunteer deputy sued for dragging double
amputee through house; no immunity for warrantless arrest for D.U.I. at home.
Patzner v. Burkett, 779 F. 2d 1363 (8th Cir. 1985).
Summary judgment granted to city since plaintiff
introduced no evidence showing a lack of probable cause to arrest. Sussman v.
City of Daytona Beach, 462 So.2d 595 (Fla. App. 1985).
Suit against state police officer for false
arrest not a suit against the State. Barletta v. Golden Nugget Hotel Casino,
601 F.Supp. 1495 (D. N.J. 1985).
Deputy granted qualified immunity since law is
unclear on warrant less arrests at home for drunk driving. Patzner v. Burkett,
603 F.Supp. 1139 (D. N.D. 1985).
Low prosecution rate does not invalidate arrests.
Ramey v. Murphy, 212 Cal. Rptr. 14 (App. 1985).
Officer's granted qualified immunity for making
felony arrest without warrant. Schlothauer v. Robinson, 757 F. 2d 196 (8th Cir.
1985).
Questioning man in store's vestibule after hours
was reasonable; damages awarded for brutality and seizing of property.
Taliferro v. Augle, 757 F. 2d 157 (7th Cir. 1985).
Police officer's law enforcement activities
valid, despite that he was not a qualified voter in county. Bogard v. Com., 687
S.W.2d 533 (Ky. App. 1985).
Auxiliary officers' arrest for misdemeanor of DUI
was without authority. Brewer v. State, 688 So.2d 736 (Ark. 1985).
No false arrest of man lying on subway tracks.
Gonzalez v. State, 488 N.Y.S. 2d 231 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).
Attorney arrested for kicking video game at ice
rink. Friedman v. Village of Skokie, 763 F. 2d 236 (7th Cir. 1985).
No liability for misrepresentations to attorney
in order to arrest client. Rosenberg v. Kriminger, 469 So.2d 879 (Fla. App.
1985).
Abuse of discretion to consider plaintiff's
unruly court behavior in refusing to grant in forma pauperis. Tyler v. City of
Milwaukee, 740 F. 2d 580 (7th Cir. 1984).
False arrest and malicious prosecution claims
against private defendants cannot be consolidated with claims against police
officer. Jacobsen v. . Hill, 477 N.Y.S. 2d 720 (App. 1984).
Officers may have had reason to arrest juvenile
for loitering in mall's bathroom. City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla.
App. 1984).
Not necessary for plaintiff to prove
out-of-pocket expenses in false arrest suit. Kehrli v. City of Utica, 482
N.Y.S. 2d 189 (A.D. 4 Dept. 1984).
No class action status for mass arrests at
demonstration. McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F. 2d 1406 (D.C. 1984).
Arrest based on off-duty officer's statements
improper. Kraft v. City of Bettendorf, 359 N.W. 2d 466 (Iowa 1984).
No liability to officer who acted in good faith
that he could arrest man for refusing to pay services rendered by tow truck.
DeChene v. Smallwood, 311 S.E. 2d 749 (Va. 1984).
Officers had reasonable grounds to commit plaintiff
twice to mental hospital. McKinney v. George, 726 F. 2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1984).
Patrolman could be personally liable for
arresting plaintiff without probable cause for drunk driving. Meeker v.
Addison, 577 F.Supp. 751 (S.D. Fla. 1983).
Firm representing city disqualified for fellow
member's association with case. Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F. 2d 844 (1st Cir.
1984).
City not proper defendant in false arrest suit.
Shelby v. City of Atlanta, 578 F.Supp. 1368 (N.D.Ga. 1984).
"Ripping Hook" in car not grounds to
arrest for possession of weapon; city liable. Hallenbeck v. City of Albany, 472
N.Y.S. 2d 187 (App. 1984).
Officer ordered to pay $50,000 for unlawful
arrest and use of excessive force. Clark v. Beville, 730 F. 2d 739 (11th Cir.
1984).
Officers had probable cause to arrest arson
suspect when he refused to answer questions. Mendoza v. Reno County, 681 P. 2d
676 (Kan. 1984).
Court's action in remitting $25,000 verdict by 80
percent was abuse of discretion in false arrest suit. Wocheck v. Foley, 477 A.
2d 1015 (Conn. 1984).
Good faith precludes liability for arrest of
plaintiff, who matched description of suspect. Evans v. Elizabeth Police Dept.,
464 A. 2d 1212 (N.J. App. 1983).
Officer could be liable for warrant less arrest
of woman at her home even though he had cause to believe a crime was committed.
Collins v. Sadlo, 306 S.E. 2d 390 (Ga. App. 1983).
No liability for arrest of female obstructing
investigation of a hit-and-run accident. Lynn v. City of New Orleans Dept. of
Police, 567 F.Supp. 761 (E.D. La. 1983).
Officer not liable for warrant less arrest of
plaintiff away from scene of traffic accident. Richard v. State, Through Dept.
of Public Safety, 436 So.2d 1265 (La. App. 1983).
City liable for false arrest of man mistaken for
robbery suspect. Dist. of Columbia v. Gandy, 466 A. 2d 851 (D.C. App. 1983); on
appeal from 458 A. 2d 414.
No liability to officers for arresting rape
suspect in house without a warrant. Jones v. Water, 570 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D. Pa.
1983).
No liability for arrest of female whom officers
thought resembled bank robber. Deary v. Evans, 570 F.Supp. 189 (D. V.I. 1983).
Officer's arrest for loitering was proper despite
ordinance was unconstitutional. Bernstein v. Aivazis, 584 F.Supp. 606 (D. N.J.
1983).
Jury award in excess of $1,000,000 for man
falsely arrested for "flashing" reversed. Children v. Burton, 331
N.W. 2d 673 (Iowa 1983).
Officers liable for false arrest made without
good faith. In another incident, superior liable for ordering improper arrest,
however, city and chief not liable absent policy or custom allegation. Vela v.
White, 703 F. 2d 147 (5th Cir. 1983).
City ordinance regarding nonpayment of cab fare
unconstitutional. Seaman v. City of Reno, 559 F.Supp. 683 (D. Nev. 1983).
Sunday school teacher awarded $45,000 for being
falsely arrested. Jackson v. City of Oakland, Sup. Ct., Alameda Co. (Cal.
1983).
Sting operation using "lost wallet"
draws widespread criticism of entrapment. North v. Port of Seattle, Cir. Ct.
King Co. (Wash. 1983).
Two plaintiffs awarded damages for injuries
resulting from struggle with police officer at scene of traffic accident. Adams
v. Thompson, 557 F.Supp. 405 (M.D. La. 1983).
Officer ordered to pay $4,500 for falsely
arresting man on public drunk charge. Smith v. Reboul, 433 So.2d 388 (La. App.
1983).
Federal court retains jurisdiction in plaintiff's claim
that he was falsely arrested and detained after his alleged traffic violation.
Miller v. Barry, 698 F. 2d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Officers lacked probable cause to arrest unusual
character carrying a pellet gun, who was an outspoken critic of the police
department. Gagnon v. Ball, 696 F. 2d 17 (2nd Cir. 1982).
New trial ordered to determine whether officer
acted in good faith when he arrested man for disorderly conduct. Trejo v.
Perez, 693 F. 2d 482 (5th Cir. 1982).
No liability for officer's warrant less arrest of
plaintiff for fishing without a license. Estes-El v. State of N.Y., 552 F.Supp.
885 (S.D. N.Y. 1982).
No liability for arrest made in good faith.
Heslip v. Lobbs 554 F. 694 (E.D. Ark. 1982).
No liability to police for assisting dog catcher,
who was found to be liable. Gerard v. Parish of Jefferson, 424, So.2d 440 (La.
App. 1982).
Officers who thought man was urinating beside car
had reasonable cause to suspect he was drunk. McCroskey v. Fettes, 336 N.W. 2d
645 (N.D.1983); appeal after remand, 310 N.W. 2d 773, (1981).
" See also: Assault
and Battery: Physical, Assault and Battery:
Baton/Nightstick, Defenses: Good Faith: Individual, Negligence: Investigations,
Search and Seizure: House/Business