Contents:
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.
Lexis 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. 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. The U. Supreme Court disagreed with this award, and held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers.
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, , L. Lexis 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.
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. Lexis 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. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on First and Fourth Amendment claims. Hoyland v. McMenomy, , F. 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, , F.
A woman claimed that restaurant employees and the D. 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, , U.
Lexis D. A woman who was arrested for possession of methamphetamine claimed that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest her. Manning v. Cotton, , U. 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, , U. A woman shot and killed her husband in the shower, and four days later reported him missing. 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 , , F. At the time, he was cooperating with officers and not resisting whatsoever, not even raising his voice. Stephens v. DeGiovanni , , F. 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. De La Rosa v.
White, , U. 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. Additionally, the offer of judgment accepted did not exempt the class certification issue.
Wright v. Calumet City, , U. 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 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.
Turner v. Driver , , U. 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. While working for a federal agency in D.
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. The officers had probable cause to arrest Smith.