Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department addresses the case of Dijon Sharpe, who was a passenger in a traffic stop where he was threatened with arrest if he continued to Facebook Livestream the stop. In addition to the threat, the officer attempted to confiscate Mr. Sharpe's phone.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation claims, because objectively reasonable for officer to believe arrestee was inciting violence or intending to provoke others to violence when he laughed loudly before standing and getting “nose-to-nose” with another and yelling at rallygoers and Trump, despite fact he was acquitted in criminal case on ground he had not used “fighting words”.
Officer appealed denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliatory use of force claim by protester; court affirms denial of qualified immunity on basis of facts asserted by plaintiff that she was merely participating in a peaceful protest and had done nothing more than come within a couple of feet of an officer; her right to be free from retaliatory use of force was clearly established.
In suit by police and union representative, court holds city’s policy of not allowing private recording or videotaping interviews in city investigations into police misconduct did not violate First Amendment; prohibition on recording speech is not a prohibition on speaking; freedom of the press right of access to information does not require government to open all proceedings to public; officers’ appearance at interviews is a legitimate condition of employment and nonrecording policy rationally furthers a legitimate government interest.
Officer who pepper sprayed woman live streaming a video of police officers’ activity violated her clearly established First Amendment rights and was not entitled to qualified immunity; “arguable probable cause” was not relevant to the claim because plaintiff did not complain of a search or seizure.
First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
Nonprofit organization did not have clearly established right under First Amendment to provide religious discipleship program within 500 feet of park with playground equipment to individuals subject to statute precluding persons convicted of certain sex crimes from being present within 500 feet of such a park.
Plaintiff posted a mock police department page on Facebook and was arrested under a state law that makes it illegal to use a computer to disrupt or impair police functions, indicted by a grand jury, and acquitted after a jury trial; plaintiff had deleted comments on the page that indicated it was fake and copied the department’s warning on its own page word for word; court says whether officers had probable cause was a difficult question, but lack of previous case afford the officers qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliation claim; court holds that officers’ televised announcement o
Recognizing First Amendment right to publicly film police, but holding that right was not clearly established in 5th Circuit in August 2015.
Plaintiffs were activists and members of the Sunset Activist Collective and associated with CopBlock, critical of law enforcement, who chalked anti-police messages on the sidewalks of Las Vegas and were arrested under the local graffiti statute; they filed suit for retaliatory arrest; court finds case falls within narrow exception of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct.