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