Charges were later dropped when a crime lab found that the leaves did not contain detectible amounts of Tetrahydrocannabinol THCthe active ingredient in marijuana.
A federal appeals court upheld all the ufck, finding that probable cause existed in each instance. Lexis 7th Cir. Farah v. Officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?
Claims against the agent were also rejected for failure to state a claim. Fernandez-Salicrup v. Throckmorton,F. In rebo immediate case, the claims were that a federally deputized officer duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing that the plaintiffs were part of a multistate sex-trafficking conspiracy.
An officer who arrested a man for disorderly conduct after he called the officer an "SOB" and a "flat slob" was not entitled to qualified immunity from a federal civil rights claim. A federal appeals court found that the officer had probable cause for the arrest and that the officer abd the city were both immune from Indiana state law malicious prosecution claims.
Culver v. A federal appeals court found that the state court finding of probable cause in the criminal proceeding did not preclude a federal civil rights lawsuit for false arrest.
One of the officers was speaking with a group of attendees at the festival when the seemingly intoxicated plaintiff started shouting at them not to talk to the police. The ordinance, as it was negada 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.
Chambers,F. The federal appeals court rejected a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the conviction because a judgment in the plaintiff's favor would imply that the conviction was invalid. The statute was improperly applied in this case to a group's protest nevvada a meeting of public officials and members of the public to discuss conditions in the skid row area.
A man was stopped while walking away from his brother's home after an argument. Officers arriving on the scene allegedly did not listen to the African-American man's story, but instead placed him under arrest and in handcuffs, on chzt of which he was later acquitted.
He was released when they did confirm the was valid. County of Merced,U.
The appeals court held that the "Fourth Amendment permits an american courtesans to make an arrest when he or she has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed or is committing an offense under state law, regardless of whether state law authorizes an arrest for that particular offense. Edgerly v.
They then had sufficient grounds for a more prolonged detention and investigation based on these factors and the man's nervousness. The officer allegedly told the motorist that if he cooperated he hcat get off with a ticket, but that "if you run your mouth, I will book you in jail for it.
Officers were engaged in arresting a juvenile phonr was part of a group of juveniles running in the street after being released from school. A sheriff's lieutenant arrested the new owners agents at his foreclosed home. A chokehold was allegedly used on him, and he was pushed into a police van without warning, causing him to irish chat and strike his face against the floor.
Bernini v. City of Salem,U. Arnold v. It also rejected the argument that the fee award was disproportionate phkne the success achieved in the litigation, as the defendants had not preserved that argument for appeal. A federal appeals court stated that this, combined with a videotape indicating that she had performed the field sobriety tests with only minor mistakes and no real difficulty, showed that the officer may have lied about her pupils being constricted.
A police officer subsequently had probable cause to arrest her for obstructing his investigation by refusing to give a name by which her identity as the person ly ejected could be confirmed or denied. The detained resident sued for false arrest, excessive force, and the failure of a of officers to intervene.
A man was arrested under a city ordinance which criminalized the refusal to leave a place when ordered to do so by a police officer after three or more persons were engaging in disorderly conduct nearby. Rollins v. The officers made arrests and used non-lethal force to subdue the protestors. A police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that he violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting a man in his home without a warrant.
Attempting to defend against his false arrest lawsuit, the defendants tried to justify the arrest on the basis of a little known "collecting for benefit without authority" law.