Alexander Sullivan, in His Individual and Official Capacities; City of Little Rock; and Keith Humphrey, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Little Rock Police Department v. Kenneth Richardson

Summary

The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed a summary-judgment order involving claims arising from Kenneth Richardson’s arrest for obstructing governmental operations while a police officer was conducting an investigatory stop. The court held that the officer had, at minimum, arguable probable cause and was entitled to qualified immunity on Richardson’s Fourth Amendment claims, including unlawful seizure and excessive force. The court further held that Richardson’s First Amendment and official-capacity and municipal-liability claims failed, reversed the circuit court, and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellants.

Holdings

1. Sullivan had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Richardson for obstructing governmental operations because Richardson approached an officer conducting an active investigation, refused repeated directives to leave, and diverted the officer's attention from the suspect. Sullivan therefore was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.
2. Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity on Richardson's excessive-force claim because the only force shown was routine handcuffing that caused no demonstrated injury beyond ordinary discomfort and was, at most, de minimis.
3. The First Amendment did not provide a basis for liability because the arrest was based on arguable probable cause that Richardson was obstructing an active investigation, not on his recording of police activity, and his recording had ceased before the arrest.
4. The official-capacity and municipal-liability claims against Sullivan, Humphrey, and the City necessarily failed because Sullivan committed no actionable constitutional violation and was entitled to qualified immunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Sullivan qualified immunity on Richardson's Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.
2. Whether Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity on Richardson's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim based on handcuffing during the arrest.
3. Whether Richardson's arrest for obstructing governmental operations violated the First Amendment right to observe or record police activity in a public place.
4. Whether the official-capacity, supervisory, and municipal-liability claims could proceed when no underlying constitutional violation by Sullivan was established.
5. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in light of the dashcam audio and other summary-judgment evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded