Page 40 - TPA Journal May June 2024
P. 40

subjective animus of an officer and a                such probable cause existed.
        subsequent injury; plaintiffs must also prove as
        a threshold matter that the decision to press        Whether probable cause exists is based on what
        charges was objectively unreasonable because         an objectively reasonable officer would
        it was not supported by probable cause.” Here,       perceive under the totality of circumstances.
        as in Nieves, the officers had probable cause to     The offense of disorderly conduct under Texas
        make the arrests for disorderly conduct and          Penal Code § 42.01(a) necessitates displaying a
        resisting arrest, thus precluding the arrestees’     firearm (or other deadly weapon), intentionally
        retaliatory arrest claims. Still, on appeal,         or knowingly, and in a manner calculated to
        Plaintiffs argue that “probable cause does not       alarm. At the time of the incident, the text of the
        foreclose this lawsuit since Grisham and             Texas statutes governing disorderly conduct and
        Everard were treated differently from others         interference with public duties and Texas state
        because of their First Amendment activities.”        caselaw interpreting the relevant statutes
        Notably, the  Nieves  Court did delineate a          supported that there was probable cause to
        carveout to the probable cause prerequisite in       arrest Everard and Grisham.
        holding that a plaintiff asserting a retaliatory
        arrest claim does not have to establish the          Although Plaintiffs maintain that their objective
        absence of probable cause “when [the] plaintiff      on March 27, 2018 was to educate the public,
        presents objective evidence that he was arrested     not to alarm it, the magistrate judge held that,
        when otherwise similarly situated individuals        considering the totality of circumstances, the
        not engaged in the same sort of protected            officers made an entirely reasonable inference
        speech had not been.” Plaintiffs contend that        that probable cause existed to effectuate their
        other armed protestors were not arrested             lawful arrests. Moreover, the Supreme Court has
        because the officers personally opposed “the         articulated that, to determine whether there was
        message that Everard and Grisham conveyed.”          probable cause to arrest, the reviewing court
        However, as the magistrate judge noted, other        should ask “whether a reasonable officer could
        protestors were arrested, but they simply did not    conclude—considering all of the surrounding
        join in this lawsuit. Further, caselaw does not      circumstances, including the plausibility of the
        require that the officers seize all “otherwise       explanation itself—that there was a substantial
        similarly situated individuals.” Rather, “where      chance of criminal activity.” Here, Plaintiffs’
        officers have probable cause to make arrests”        purported innocent explanations do not negate
        they may not disproportionately or unfairly          the officers’ probable cause for executing their
        “exercise their discretion not to do so.” The        arrests.
        “no-probable-cause requirement” applies in the
        instant case because Plaintiffs have not             The relevant facts and circumstances here were
        presented     objective    evidence,     beyond      sufficient for a reasonable officer to believe that
        conclusory statements, that they were arrested       Everard acted with the requisite specific intent
        “when otherwise similarly situated individuals       to cause sustained fear or serious public
        not engaged in the same sort of protected            disruption by displaying a firearm in a manner
        speech had not been.”        Consequently, the       calculated to alarm and that Grisham’s
        officers are entitled to qualified immunity          continued approach towards Everard and
        because there was probable cause to arrest           officers, while being instructed to retreat,
        Everard and Grisham           pursuant to a          amounted to interference. Believing that
        presumptively constitutional and enforceable         immediate police action was necessary, several
        statute. And, as the record reflects, the officers   alarmed passersby used the 911 emergency
        were objectively reasonable in believing that        system to contemporaneously report Everard’s




        36                 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140             Texas Police Journal
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45