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

     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


Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu