Dustin whyte facebook

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Edmonton Journal Headline News will soon be in your inbox. We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again. This website uses cookies to personalize your content including ads , and allows us to analyze our traffic.

Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Oil Spills.

Manage Print Subscription. Dustyn White - dustynwhite0. Dustyn Whitehead - dustynw Dustywhite - dustywhite. Dusty White - dustyw1. Dustin White - dustinvwhite. Dusty White - keystonedrinka. Dustin Waite - Dustin Hite - Dusty White - dustysgraphics. Dusty White - Dusty White - angus Dustin Whitecotton. Dustin Whitecotton is a Canadian ice hockey coach and a retired professional ice hockey player. Search by Name Please enter a First Name.

Please enter a Last Name. Search Tools. Country USA. Dustyn M. White 34 yrs, whiteboy Dustyn White 49 yrs, whiteboy Sponsored by BeenVerified. The officers claimed that he was drinking and fell because he was intoxicated. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers. Reversing for a new trial, a federal appeals court held that the defendants were improperly allowed to cross examine the plaintiff about a subsequent unrelated underage drinking arrest to try to convince the jury that he had been intoxicated at the time of his first arrest.

They were also improperly allowed to question him about a subsequent conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. The improper questioning was not harmless, since it could not be said that it did not substantially sway the jury. Barber v. No convictions were obtained on any of the charges. The plaintiffs claimed that one family member, a boy who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, subsequently developed a mental illness as a result of the beating and an alleged threat by one officer to kill him if he didn't leave town.

They claimed that he now requires 24 hours a day supervision. Ramos v. Cicero , cv, U. When he got there, an officer allegedly exit the van, knocked the cell phone and video camera out of his hands, told him to turn around, and handcuffed him, after which two officers started to beat him.

A chokehold was allegedly used on him, and he was pushed into a police van without warning, causing him to fall and strike his face against the floor. The trial court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim because, at the time of the incident , it was not clearly established in the 8th Circuit that an officer violates the rights of an arrestee by applying force that causes only "de minimis" minimal injuries.

Here, the arrestee's contusions and swelling were injuries classified as de minimis. The officers were not, however, entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim since, under the plaintiff's version of the incident, he was not trespassing or obstructing the sidewalk, and no reasonable officers could have concluded that he was committing those crimes. Robinson v. City of Minneapolis, , U. A woman claimed that officers arrested her on false charges and subsequently conspired together with other officers to prevent her from filing a lawsuit for false arrest.

There was strong evidence that two officers conspired with the arresting officers to conceal facts that could be the basis of a legal claim for false arrest and detention, so they were not entitled to qualified immunity.

The woman was arrested by an officer who stopped by her own home to obtain her medicine and who was upset that the woman, her son's girlfriend, was present in the son's bedroom. When she was unable to get a ride to leave, she was arrested for trespassing. Among other things, the female officer's name was allegedly later removed from an incident report as she was on limited administrative duty at the time, without authority to participate in an arrest.

Board of Police Commissioners, , U. When officers saw a man carrying a holstered gun on his hip in public, they handcuffed and detained him for approximately 90 minutes while trying to determine the validity of a carrying license he presented, one issued mostly to security officers and private detectives that they were not familiar with. He was released when they did confirm the license was valid. The federal appeals court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim.

Even had they known about the type of license presented, it would have been reasonable under the circumstances to detain the plaintiff until they could confirm its validity. While the length of the detention may have been unfortunate, that was attributed to the government's failure to have an efficient license verification system.

One of the officers, however, was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that a preexisting medical condition was worsened by the handcuffs being too tight. Rabin v. Flynn, , U. A man was stopped while walking away from his brother's home after an argument. He was arrested after he was identified from a photographic lineup by a kidnapping victim. He was charged with kidnapping and subsequently indicted by a grand jury, and spent seventeen months in custody awaiting trial before the charges were dropped because the complaining witness was unavailable, possibly having moved to Germany.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the grand jury indictment did not entitle the law enforcement defendants in a false imprisonment lawsuit to statutory or official immunity because the finding of probable cause for prosecution by the grand jury did not establish that his arrest was supported by probable cause or that his arrest was not made in a wanton or reckless manner.

The court found that it could be concluded that there was no probable cause to arrest as a result of inconsistencies in the kidnap victim's description and photographic identification, and the actual appearance of the plaintiff at the time of the arrest.

The dismissal of the lawsuit was reversed. The malicious prosecution claim was rejected, however, based on the grand jury indictment. Ojo v. Lorenzo, , 64 A. When officers could have reasonably believed that a man had attempted to cause serious physical injury to a person, they had probable cause to arrest him.

They could rely on the victim's statement and did not need to take a statement from the arrestee's neighbor, who did not witness the fight in question.

Both false arrest and malicious prosecution claims were rejected. Joseph v. Allen, , U. A man was arrested and taken into custody for trespass because he was standing by himself inside a fenced-in playground that had no trespassing signs at all entrances. A federal appeals court overturned judgment for the defendant officers, finding that a state statute that provided ten broad grounds for making a custodial arrest applied to misdemeanors but not to infractions, which came under a statute specifying three narrower grounds for custodial arrests for infractions.

The court ruled that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff, followed by a trial on damages. The court upheld, however, a jury's rejection of an unlawful search claim, as the error on the false arrest standard did not taint the determination that no strip search had occurred.

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, , F. When a man and a magistrate's daughter ended their engagement, the man tried to retrieve a diamond engagement ring and other items of personal property. Following that, allegations were made that he had stolen his ex-girlfriend's dog. This resulted in a police chase down rural roads and a brief arrest of the man and his father. Both arrestees then filed a false arrest and conspiracy lawsuit against the magistrate, the deputy who made the arrest, and the deputy's supervisor.

A federal appeals court ruled that there had been probable cause for the arrests, and that no excessive force was used by the deputy in grabbing the son by the arm, forcing him to the ground, placing him in handcuffs, and searching him, since the deputy could not have known whether he was armed or would resist arrest.

There was no real evidence of conspiracy, and the magistrate did not act under color of law in reporting the alleged theft of the dog. Myers v. Bowman, , U. Police arrested a woman's son for driving a vehicle involved in an accident. The woman and her son's girlfriend, who witnessed the accident, went to the police station, where the girlfriend was told to remain and threatened with a warrant for her arrest being obtained if she left.

The woman counseled the girlfriend to leave, however, and escorted her out. She was charged with witness tampering, although that charge was later dismissed. A federal appeals court found that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity on as federal false arrest claim and official immunity under New Hampshire law on a state malicious prosecution claim, as there was at least arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Moses v. Mele, , U. A motorist adequately alleged that officers arrested him in retaliation for his First Amendment protected expressive activity after he was cited for violating a noise ordinance. The officer allegedly told the motorist that if he cooperated he would get off with a ticket, but that "if you run your mouth, I will book you in jail for it.

A reasonable officer would have known that he could not exercise his discretion to book a person in retaliation for First Amendment activity. Ford v. City of Yakima, , U. A man and his wife traveling in a car with the wife driving encountered a police officer using a radar device. The husband knew this because he had a radar detector. He gave the officer "the finger" to express his disapproval of what the officer was doing. The officer stopped the vehicle, which had not been speeding or committing any traffic violations.

When both occupants got out, they were ordered to get back in the car, which they did. Subsequently, the husband again got out of the vehicle, seeking to speak to the three officers present, and repeated twice that he felt "like an ass.

Reversing summary judgment for the defendant officers, a federal appeals court ruled that the vehicle stop was not lawful, and that qualified immunity for the officers was improper, since a reasonable officer would not have thought that the mere insult of "giving the finger" provided a basis for initiating a law enforcement process, or that there was probable cause for a disorderly conduct arrest.

A malicious prosecution claim also should not have been rejected on the basis of summary judgment for the defendants. Swartz v. Insogna, , U. Officers were not liable for violating the rights of a Hispanic man who was arrested and removed from a city council meeting where he voiced opposition to the city's proposed agreement with federal authorities for immigration enforcement in the city.

In a prior meeting, he had called the mayor a "racist pig," and in this meeting, he had called for his supporters in the audience to rise. He was removed and arrested under a city ordinance prohibiting "disorderly, insolent, or disruptive" actions at such official meetings. While the use of the term "insolent" made the ordinance overbroad, the deletion of the term would make the ordinance constitutional. At the time of the arrest, the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner by believing that the ordinance was valid and justified his removal.

Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, , F. Police lacked probable cause to make a warrantless arrest of a man for third-degree menacing. The information that they had merely indicated that he had approached a woman in her driveway and insisted that her car had hit his. She asked him to leave and ran into her house, and he left. The woman never said that she felt physically threatened or that the arrestee took any assaultive actions.

Summary judgment was improper on a false arrest claim. Ackerson v. City of White Plains, , U. Police received a call reporting that a year-old girl had made statements indicating that she planned to kill herself by taking ibuprofen pills. Three officers and emergency medical personnel went to the girl's home where the girl admitted to the statements but said she had changed her mind.

An officer told her she had to go to the hospital, and while the girl's parents first disagreed, they relented after the officer said they could be charged with assisted manslaughter if their daughter then killed herself. The girl's mother first refused to accompany her daughter to the hospital, but then did so, later suing for false arrest based on a claim that the officer had insisted that she accompany her daughter. In a false arrest lawsuit brought by the girl's mother, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity as the mother was not seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

There was no indication that the officer displayed a weapon, physically touched the mother, or intimidated her with a threatening presence to compel her to go. James v. City of Wilkes Barre, , U.

Lexis 3rd Cir. The settlement was offered by the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure The appeals court rejected the argument that the Rule 68 offer of judgment to settle all claims should have been interpreted to include any costs, including attorneys' fees, when that was not specified.

It also rejected the argument that the fee award was disproportionate to the success achieved in the litigation, as the defendants had not preserved that argument for appeal. Barbour v. Police officers did not violate the First Amendment rights of demonstrators at the Madison Square Garden Republican National Convention by arresting those who failed to comply with orders to move from an area were demonstrating was prohibited to a designated demonstration zone.

The restriction of protest to the designated zone was content neutral, and was narrowly tailored to achieve significant governmental interests concerning sidewalk congestion and convention security. The demonstration zone, which was equipped with a stage and sound amplification equipment, provided an adequate alternative channel of expression.

Marcavage v. City of New York, , F. A group of men were outside one of their residences when unmarked police cars pulled up, demanded to know what they were doing, and ordered them to empty their pockets. When an officer seized keys for the residence and walked toward it, the resident objected and he was handcuffed and then forced to the pavement and allegedly hit and kicked. The officers subsequently left without making any formal arrests.

The detained resident sued for false arrest, excessive force, and the failure of a number of officers to intervene. A jury verdict in favor of the defendant officers was upheld on appeal. The appeals court found that any possible flaws in the failure to intervene claim instructions to the jury were harmless, as was the trial court's ruling allowing evidence that the detained plaintiff had several prior arrests.

Sanchez v. Rejecting an excessive force claim, the court found that any aggravation of the arrestee's old shoulder injury was attributable to the routine police procedure of handcuffing his hands behind his back, rather than any improper force. Failure to train and supervise claims were properly rejected in light of the lack of any underlying violation of the plaintiff's rights. Royster v. Nichols, , U. A private security guard had probable cause to make a citizen's arrest of a female professional gambler for trespassing even if she had been sent an invitation to visit the casino.

The guard had no way of knowing if she was the person whose name appeared on the invitation, and he had a record that she had previously been thrown out under another name.

Further, she was using a player's card with a third name and gave him a fourth name, as well as carrying no identification. A police officer subsequently had probable cause to arrest her for obstructing his investigation by refusing to give a name by which her identity as the person previously ejected could be confirmed or denied. Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc. Lexis A police officer saw a former firefighter soliciting money for charity with a firefighter's boot, and arrested him for theft relating to the misuse of a firefighter's identification card, as he was no longer a firefighter.

The arrestee was given an order of supervision on the theft charge. When the same officer later saw the arrestee again soliciting money using a large boot, he arrested him for violating the order of supervision, although he actually lacked authority, under state law, to arrest him for violating the terms of his supervision. The appeals court held that the "Fourth Amendment permits an officer to make an arrest when he or she has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed or is committing an offense under state law, regardless of whether state law authorizes an arrest for that particular offense.

The officer could also reasonably believe that asking for charitable donations using a large rubber boot amounted to the man holding himself out as a firefighter and improperly soliciting funds on behalf of the fire department. Tebbens v. Mushol, 11—, U. A man was arrested under a city ordinance which criminalized the refusal to leave a place when ordered to do so by a police officer after three or more persons were engaging in disorderly conduct nearby. A federal appeals court found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment on its face because it "substantially inhibits protected speech and is not amenable to clear and uniform enforcement.

The ordinance, as it was standardless as to the nature of the annoyance that triggered the law, could render individuals subject to arbitrary or discriminatory arrest, making it void for vagueness in violation of due process.

Bell v. Keating, , U. Police officers lacked probable cause to arrest a female attorney for obstruction after she informed them that a woman in a nightclub they were trying to question was her client and "doesn't have anything to say to you.

Her actions showed only a purpose to ensure the respect of her client's constitutional rights, which could not be reasonably construed as hampering or impeding the officers' investigation.

The officers were properly denied qualified immunity on her false arrest claims. Patrizi v. Huff, , U. Lexis , Fed. Two teenage African-American males were arrested on accusations that they offered to sell Ecstasy to undercover officers driving by in an unmarked car. After the charges against them were dismissed, they sued the officers for false arrest.

The jury returned a verdict for the officers. Upholding the verdict, the appeals court rejected the argument that lawyers for the defendant officers had improperly been allowed to ask questions about drug activity on the block where the arrests had been made, which insinuated that it was a high-crime area. The jury's verdict was supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Willis v. Lepine, 11—, U.

A state trooper compelled a female motorist, stopped for failing to dim her lights, to perform field sobriety tests. He stated that he did so because her pupils were constricted, and then placed her under arrest for DUI. Subsequently, a urine test showed that she had not been drinking, and the charges were dismissed.

A federal appeals court stated that this, combined with a videotape indicating that she had performed the field sobriety tests with only minor mistakes and no real difficulty, showed that the officer may have lied about her pupils being constricted. A reasonable jury could find that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct the field sobriety tests or place the motorist under arrest. Qualified immunity for the officer would be inappropriate.

Green v. Throckmorton, , F. Officers who saw a vehicle "filled to the brim" with piles of clothing and other personal items going around apparently at random in a high crime neighborhood at a. Once stopped, the officers saw a child sitting in a child seat with diapers and clothes in his lap. They soon learned from a dispatcher that his wife had reported him as attempting to leave town with the child.

They then had sufficient grounds for a more prolonged detention and investigation based on these factors and the man's nervousness.

They also had a basis to transport him to the police station based on information about a domestic incident with his wife. When he failed to be able to produce a driver's license, there was probable cause for an arrest. He was a Marine back from duty in Iraq and allegedly mentally disturbed.

Subsequently, the officers acted lawfully in detaining and committing him for psychiatric evaluation. His rights were not violated. Hoover v. Walsh, , U. Security guards at a "turbulent" public school board meeting allegedly pulled an activist from his seat and dragged him out of the meeting after he refused to leave when asked.

He denied being one of those disrupting the meeting. Once outside, he was arrested by police based on the security guards' version of the incident. He was acquitted of disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. The officers were not liable for false arrest and were properly granted qualified immunity, as they could rely on the security guards' statements that the man had disrupted the meeting to arrest him, and were not required to investigate further.

The plaintiff also failed to present a valid First Amendment claim against the school board or its security guards, as he had not shown that they threw him out on the basis of his remarks during the public comments portion of the meeting or his past activism. Nocciero, 11—, F. A singer and his manager were involved in a fight with a nightclub owner and security personnel. After they were badly beaten and deposited outside, police were called, and they were arrested after the club told officers they had tried to come in without paying an entrance fee, and that the singer hit the club owner in the face.

They sued for false arrest, claiming that police improperly took the word of the nightclub staff, and should have reviewed an available videotape, which would have shown that the club's version of events was inaccurate. The appeals court found that the statements the club made to police were sufficient to furnish probable cause for arrest, after which the officers had no obligation to view the video or seek out other exculpatory evidence.

Matthews v. City of East St. Louis, 11—, F. Police knocked on a man's door after a motorist whose car had been vandalized reporting seeing him first in the parking lot and then entering the apartment. When he came out of his door, he saw police and turned around to go back inside. The officers grabbed him, and subjected him to a leg sweep, and he chipped a tooth during the encounter.

There was no probable cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for a detention based solely on the man's prior presence in the lot where the car had been vandalized. Under these circumstances, the man had a right to walk away. The court found that the unlawful arrest claim could continue, and ruled that the trial court should evaluate the excessive force claim independently, as it was not necessarily dependent on whether or not any arrest or detention was proper.

Romero v. Story, 11—, F. A police officer threw a man down on the ground and arrested him for public intoxication. He did this while responding to a domestic violence call when he saw the man advancing towards another man who was allegedly backing up with his hands raised in a nonthreatening position. The arrestee, who had heart problems, died three years later and his estate sued he officer.

A federal appeals court ruled that the officer's action amount to an arrest rather than an investigative detention, and that the facts did not support probable cause for an arrest at that time, since the man was unarmed and was not within reach of the other man. The officer's use of force may have been excessive, as the man was not trying to resist arrest or flee and posed little threat to the safety of others. His right under these circumstances not to be subject to a forceful takedown was clearly established.

The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. Morris v. Noe, 11—, F. A man was arrested and convicted of sexual assault and home invasion. The city was required to indemnify the officer and the city sought to obtain payment of the judgment from its liability insurers. The appeals court noted that even though the city properly notified its insurers of the lawsuit, they all refused to help the city and officer defend the claim or provide any indemnification.

Additionally, they did not go to court to seek a declaratory judgment that the claims were not covered under their policies. Only after it was all over was the current lawsuit filed, seeking a declaratory judgment that insurers had no obligation to pay. The company providing the insurance policy as of the date of the arrestee's exoneration will be required to pay the judgment. The insurer could also be held liable under a state statute for an unreasonable and vexatious failure to provide a defense.

American Safety Casualty Insurance Co. City of Waukegan, , U. After officers arrested a man for drinking on a public way, they found heroin and crack cocaine on him during a search incident to arrest. Subsequently, after the drinking charge was dropped, a trial judge ruled that there was no probable cause for the drug arrest.

In a false arrest lawsuit, a verdict for the defendant police officers was returned following testimony by an assistant prosecutor that it was common for drug charges to be dismissed if the amount of drugs found was relatively small. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial, as that testimony should not have been allowed without first disclosing that the assistant prosecutor would be testifying as an expert witness and following the procedures to present her evidence as such.

Tribble v. Evangelides, , F. After a purse snatcher shot a woman and her mother, an officer visited them at the hospital. Another visitor mentions a neighborhood man who is rumored to be a robber.

The woman identified the man from a photo array, but with some hesitation. The suspect is arrested but subsequently exonerated of the crime. The identification still was sufficient to provide probable cause for the arrest.

A man active in advocating the right to carry concealed firearms in public openly carried a holstered handgun into retail stores on two occasions. Both times, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and had his gun confiscated.

He was not prosecuted and each time his gun was eventually returned. He claimed that his conduct was not disorderly and was protected under the federal and state constitutions. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest claims. The officers could not have anticipated that the U.

Supreme Court would subsequently issue Second Amendment opinions raising an issue about whether his conduct was lawful and were not required to balance alleged firearms rights under the Wisconsin state constitution against the disorderly conduct law. The officers also were not liable for violating the plaintiff's rights under the federal Privacy Act by requesting his Social Security number during one of the incidents, since it was not clearly established that they had to inform him whether the disclosure of his Social Security number was voluntary or mandatory, and they had not denied him any "right, benefit, or privilege" based on his refusal to disclose the number.

The court also rejected claims for unlawful seizure of his property, the handgun. Village of West Milwaukee, , U. A deputy sheriff responded to a call indicating concerns about the welfare of a five-year-old child in the care of a mother said to be drunk and "acting weird. She later allegedly consents to his entry and agrees to restrain her growling dogs.

He discovers that the child has a fever which is dangerously high. A jury rejected a claim for unlawful warrantless entry. A federal appeals court upheld this result, and the jury instructions. The court noted that a "majority of the circuits place the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a Sec. A minority of the circuits place the burden of proof on the defendant. Der v. Connolly, 11—, F.

During the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, a police commander ordered that no one be permitted to enter the downtown area during a time when large crowds of protestors and widespread vandalism had been encountered.

A large group of people attempted to ignore the order, and allegedly responded to the officers blocking their path by throwing feces and rocks at them. The officers made arrests and used non-lethal force to subdue the protestors.

A federal appeals court ruled that the arrests were reasonable, including arrests of those who were not themselves using violence, but were swept up as part of the crowd.

The officers also used reasonable force under the circumstances. Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 10—, U. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Even if the contest for the big prizes didn't meet the technical definition of an illegal lottery under state law, the awarding of small weekly prizes along the way to awarding the big prizes may have fit within the prohibitions of the statute.

Stepnes v. Ritschel, , U. An officer arrived at the home to investigate complaints that a woman and her parents had taken unauthorized control of an elderly woman's property and care there. The officer confronts a caretaking woman outside the home, and asked her about the location of the elderly woman. When she refused to answer his question, and attempted to flee inside the house, he placed her under arrest for obstruction, grabbed her arm, and handcuffed her after a struggle.

A federal appeals court rejects First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims, ruling that there was no clearly established law that the woman had a right to refuse to answer the officer's questions during a Terry investigative stop.

The officer was entitled to qualified immunity, as he could reasonably, under these circumstances, believe that her refusal to answer his question amounted to obstruction. The court also rejected a claim that the officer handcuffed the woman too tightly, finding that any injury was de minimis minimal.

Koch v. City of Del City, , F. After a city's mayor complained to police that her neighbor, a single mother, was allowing her children to run wild through flower beds in the neighborhood, an officer allegedly knocked the mother to the ground and dragged her to his vehicle, placing her inside it. One of her children opened the door of the police car, and she fled the vehicle. The officer then placed her under arrest for escape.

A federal appeals court upheld a verdict for the mother in her false arrest lawsuit. Based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the officer initially arrested her without probable cause to do so, so that she was justified in fleeing. Arnold v. Wilder, , U. A woman voluntarily signed two lifetime exclusion forms agreeing not to frequent a casino. These forms were required to be available under state laws designed to assist problem gamblers.

After the casino changed ownership, she entered the premises and was arrested for criminal trespass. She sued for false arrest after the charges were dropped. The law enforcement agent who arrested her was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Borgman v. Kedley, , F. Officers arrested a man outside a state fairgrounds for scalping tickets, despite the fact that the state had no anti-scalping law. Attempting to defend against his false arrest lawsuit, the defendants tried to justify the arrest on the basis of a little known "collecting for benefit without authority" law.

A federal appeals court rejected this defense, finding that the arrest could not retroactively be justified by citing an obscure statute that reasonable arresting officers were unlikely to have known of.

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, , U. A motorist was arrested once for disorderly conduct when he attempted to jump onto his vehicle as it is being towed away, and did the same thing months later, and is then arrested for theft of lost property based on the presence of a police ticket book in his car.

He is arrested a third time approximately a year later for trespass into a parking lot intended for police parking only, and sues, claiming all three of these incidents constituted false arrest. A federal appeals court upheld all the arrests, finding that probable cause existed in each instance.

The court defines disorderly conduct as disturbing the public order or a breach of the peace. Sroga v. Weiglen, , U. A man was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in standing ten feet away from officers and using a cell phone's video recorder with an audio microphone to record their activities, based on his concern that they were using excessive force on an arrestee in a public place.

The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on the man's false arrest lawsuit, despite his argument that the videotaping, by recording audio without consent of all parties to a conversation, violated a state wiretapping statute. The wiretapping statute aimed at clandestine recording, and the officers admitted that the arrestee was open about the fact that he was recording them.

Glik v. Cunniffe, , U. There might be some circumstances in which an arrest that was "unambiguously invalid" solely on the basis of state law would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. But the plaintiff arrestee had not shown that the township ordinance under which he was arrested, prohibiting public intoxication, was unambiguously invalid under New Jersey law. McMullen v. Maple Shade Twp. An officer's use of pepper spray to effect an arrest of a man he had observed, weeks earlier, driving with a suspended driver's license was not unreasonable under clearly established law.

The arrestee squared off facing the officer and stuck his arms out in a "T," giving the officer probable cause to make an arrest for resisting, whether or not the man was arrested for the prior traffic violation under a valid warrant.

Brooks v. City of Aurora, , U. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an attorney on suspicion of smuggling methamphetamine into a county jail. Corroborated evidence from a jailhouse informant that the attorney had accepted jail contraband from one inmate to take to his office for later delivery to another prisoner gave the officers probable cause both to arrest the attorney and to obtain a search warrant for his office.

County of Merced, , U.