Another individual walking by refused midwets answer whether he had been in the pickup truck, obey orders, or produce identification, and challenged what the officer was doing.
A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim against the female deputy because the arrest, which was without probable cause, was the result of her unreasonable conduct. The other officer did so, grabbing her arm as she climbed out of the vehicle, dragging her to his patrol car, pushing her against the hood to handcuff her, and then shoving her inside.
Branch v. The ordinance, as it was standardless as to the nature of the annoyance that triggered the law, could render individuals subject to arbitrary or discriminatory arrest, making it void for vagueness in violation of due process.
Peterson v. The appeals court noted that the plaintiff, although an attorney, "remarkably" cited no authority in support of his false arrest claim. Shimomura v. The officers observed what appeared to be open drug sales of crack cocaine in a lot involving four men and a juvenile with passersby attracted into a lot by yells of "rocks, rocks," referring to cocaine. A federal appals court found that, while the statute in question was not facially unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff's behavior, or political meetings as occurred here.
When police arrived, they found literature referring to Moorish Science, belonging to the visitor. He turned into a parking lot, went into a store, and then returned to his truck. The officers could not have anticipated that the U. The female deputy initiated the stop because she mistakenly believed that the vehicle was stolen. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the grand jury indictment did not entitle the law enforcement defendants in a false imprisonment lawsuit to statutory or escoft immunity because the finding of probable cause for prosecution by the grand jury did not establish that his arrest was supported by probable cause or that his arrest was not made in a wanton or reckless manner.
A federal appeals court ruled that the arrests were reasonable, including arrests of those who were not themselves using violence, but were swept up as part of the crowd.
City of Aurora,U. During the Republican National Convention in St.
While there had been reasonable suspicion to make the stop, if the plaintiff's version of events were true, the incident turned into an unlawful arrest when the officers continued after determining that she was a woman alone in the car. Several sued for false arrest. Moore v.
Qualified immunity protected the officers from liability on the plaintiffs' claim that they were arrested in retaliation for their protests in violation of the First Amendment, as such arrests based on probable cause did not violate clearly established law. Modwest the police station, he was subjected to a visual body cavity search, which uncovered drugs.
He sued the U. Reversing summary judgment for the defendant officers, a federal appeals court ruled that the vehicle stop was not lawful, and that qualified immunity for the officers was improper, since a reasonable officer would not have thought that the mere insult of "giving the finger" provided a basis for initiating a law enforcement process, or that there was probable cause for a disorderly conduct midwdst.
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that the law authorized the arrest of a group of middle schoolers in order to teach them a lesson or to prove a point, and the evidence was insufficient to create probable cause eecort arrest the students for violating state statutes, and therefore the plaintiffs were also entitled to summary midwrst on their state false arrest claim.
Campos v. The male deputy in the incident was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim as he could rely on information conveyed to him by the female deputy, which he did not know was mistaken. Once outside, he was vity by police based on the security guards' version of the incident.
A man who was arrested while he was video recording a police station from a public sidewalk and refused to identify himself sued three officers and the city, claiming that the arrest violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights. There was strong evidence that two officers conspired with the arresting officers to conceal facts that could be the basis of a legal claim for false arrest and detention, so they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
If the woman's version of the incident were true, the officers used excessive force against her despite the fact that she was clearly afraid and was completely cooperating with their orders. Nichols,U. Edgerly v. Lexis 9th Cir. The U. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim when the plaintiff presented no evidence of any inaccuracy in the radar gun.
Pegg v. The officer's actions were reasonable in light of the time of day, the woman's non-cooperative attitude, and her repeatedly asking to urinate.
The detained resident sued for false arrest, excessive force, and the failure of a of officers to intervene. When the officer questioned the neighbor, he allegedly said, without prompting, that he had not entered the man's bathroom or gotten into his pants.
But in this case, since the law on that subject was not clearly established, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim. The shofar was 37 inches long and 6 inches wide. They could rely on the victim's statement and did not need to take a statement from the arrestee's neighbor, who did not witness the fight in question.
Architectural Digest. A federal appeals court wscort this defense, finding that the arrest could not retroactively be justified by citing an obscure statute that reasonable arresting officers were unlikely to have known of. He gave the officer "the finger" to express his disapproval of what the officer was doing.