False Arrest

Clarifying standards in 11th Circuit following District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577 (2018), and
Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4 th 891 (11 th Cir. 2022); “probable cause exists where a
reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances,
including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a substantial chance of
criminal activity,” and “arguable probable cause exists where a reasonable officer,
looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted

Officer could be held liable
where probable cause that existed from telephone call had dissipated by time of arrest.

No probable cause for arrest for interrupting policeman in performance of duty based on verbal criticism protected by First Amendment, no qualified immunity.

Where officer had no reason to believe subject was armed, subject was critically injured and likely could not move, handcuffing subject was an arrest without probable cause under clearly established law.

Use of firearms to detain subject of Terry stop was reasonable and did not escalate detention into arrest where officers reasonably suspected they were confronting a fugitive triple-murderer.

Under Iowa law, arrestee’s passive refusal to comply with detectives’ request to enter home for welfare check on arrestee’s daughter did not constitute resistance or obstruction as crime to interfere with official acts and thus there was no probable cause for arrest; no arguable probable cause and no qualified immunity.

Officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Moorish Americans for refusing to leave courthouse when ordered to do so after declining to submit to security screening; 1836 U.S.-Morocco Treaty of Peace and Friendship did not clearly establish a right for Moorish Americans to enter courthouse without security screening.

Where protestors were boxed into a “kettle,” beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested in demonstration that was generally peaceful and not all arrested persons were part of a unit violating the law, officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest claim; supervisors who did not order or observe or intent excessive force were entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim; officers entitled to qualified immunity on conspiracy claim due to unsettled status of incorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 cases.

Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to applications for warrants; “best evidence” rule did not require officer to attach photo he described; probable cause may rest upon hearsay so long as there is a substantial basis for crediting it.