Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion addresses a plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim against a police officer following his detention for walking on the wrong side of a highway and refusing to identify himself. Reversing the district court's grant of qualified immunity, the panel holds that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an exception to the general rule that probable cause defeats such claims, citing evidence that officers typically do not arrest individuals for similar pedestrian violations unless they engage in protected speech. The court also found that Missouri law did not authorize arresting a suspect solely for refusing to identify himself during a Terry stop. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Murphy plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim despite conceding that Schmitt had probable cause to arrest him for walking on the wrong side of the road.
- Whether the Nieves v. Bartlett narrow exception for retaliatory-arrest claims applies where the complaint alleges objective evidence of selective enforcement but the relevant arrest records are controlled by the defendant.
- Whether Schmitt had probable or arguable probable cause to arrest Murphy for failing to identify himself under Missouri law.
- Whether Schmitt was entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.
Holdings
- Murphy plausibly alleged that objective evidence existed showing that similarly situated persons who walked on the wrong side of the road but did not engage in protected speech were generally not arrested, while he was arrested after criticizing and arguing with the officer.
- Schmitt failed to establish on the face of the complaint that Missouri law authorized him to order Murphy to identify himself and arrest him for refusing to comply.
- Schmitt was not entitled to qualified immunity based on the complaint because Murphy plausibly alleged a constitutional violation and the right to be free from arrest in retaliation for protected speech was clearly established.
Key quotations
“A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s alleged misconduct.” (at 3)
“The mere existence of a statute permitting an officer to ask for information does not authorize an arrest for failing to provide it without some legal authority behind the demand.” (at 6)
Factual background
Murphy was walking with traffic on the shoulder of a Missouri highway when Officer Schmitt stopped him and demanded identification. Murphy refused, questioned the detention, and argued with Schmitt for approximately nine minutes before being handcuffed and taken to the sheriff's department. Schmitt claimed Murphy was stumbling and walking on the wrong side of the road, although Murphy alleged he was neither stumbling nor intoxicated and that Schmitt admitted smelling no alcohol. Murphy was held for approximately two hours and was never charged in connection with the incident.
Procedural history
Murphy sued Officer Schmitt under § 1983 for false arrest and First Amendment retaliation after Schmitt arrested him following a dispute about identifying himself while walking on the wrong side of a highway. The district court dismissed the claims based on qualified immunity. A divided Eighth Circuit panel initially affirmed, but the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino. On reconsideration, the Eighth Circuit reversed dismissal of the retaliatory-arrest claim and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings on Murphy's First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim.