This brief argues that retaliatory arrests that do not involve on-the-spot law-enforcement decisions—or that otherwise present objective suggestions of improper motive—occur with sufficient frequency to make the need for an effective remedy compelling. At the same time, the course of retaliatory-arrest litigation also indicates that the availability of such a remedy would not threaten the ability of law enforcement officers to operate effectively.
Officer who fired tear gas at Al Jazeera America reporters during Ferguson protest had no probable cause for doing so and violated their clearly established First Amendment rights.
Questionable decision denying plaintiff’s claim that his arrest near police station was in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment right to photograph police vehicles and people, on ground that plaintiff’s uncooperative response to officers’ questions plus information police had regarding stolen and vandalized cars in that area and previous murder of two officers by person with history of filming the police, would give objectively reasonable person grounds to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police.
Visitor center for Spaceport America, a public agency, was not a public forum in which government must allow picketing and other forms of protest; there was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for trespass, hence there could be no cause of action for retaliatory arrest.
Pulling plaintiff over for traffic stop because he gestured at officer with his middle finger would amount to First Amendment retaliation.
Where there was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest, there was no cause of action for retaliatory arrest based on plaintiff’s support of sheriff’s political opponent.