Page 29 - TPA Journal March April 2017
P. 29
OFFENSE OF INTERFERENCE – CIVIL RIGHTS arrested him without probable cause in viola-
CASE tion of the Fourth Amendment. After removing
the case to federal court, the Defendants
Childers brought suit against moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Defendants–Appellees Ed Iglesias and Anne Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendants asserted
Hollis for unlawful arrest under 42 U.S.C. § qualified immunity and argued that Childers’s
1983. The district court granted the allegations do not support a constitutional vio-
Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground lation. The district court agreed and granted the
that Childers failed to allege a constitutional Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This appeal fol-
violation. For the reasons stated below, we lowed. Sheriffs, arrived, Childers’s truck was
AFFIRM. parked in front of the gate to the ranch. The
Defendants parked their car in front of
Childers owns a ranch in Parker County, Childers’s truck. Childers alleges that he was
Texas. On September 15, 2013, Childers went intending to leave the ranch at that point, but
to his ranch to evict an individual whom he that the Defendants’ parked car prevented him
was allowing to stay there. After he arrived, he from leaving.
requested assistance from the Parker County
Sheriff’s Office. When Hollis and Iglesias, who Childers then attempted to explain the situ-
are Parker County Deputy Sheriffs, arrived, ation to Hollis. While Childers was speaking
Childers’s truck was parked in front of the gate with Hollis, Iglesias asked Childers to move his
to the ranch. The Defendants parked their car truck. Childers did not immediately comply;
in front of Childers’s truck. Childers alleges that instead he “attempted to complete his expla-
he was intending to leave the ranch at that nation.” Iglesias then placed Childers under
point, but that the Defendants’ parked car pre- arrest for interfering with the officers’ duties.
vented him from leaving. Childers alleges that the Defendants could
have driven around his truck, and that Hollis
Childers then attempted to explain the situ- agreed; Iglesias, however, did not believe he
ation to Hollis. While Childers was speaking could drive around the truck.
with Hollis, Iglesias asked Childers to move his
truck. Childers did not immediately comply; Although the district attorney eventually
instead he “attempted to complete his expla- dismissed the charge, Childers was held in jail
nation.” Iglesias then placed Childers under for over twenty-four hours and incurred legal
arrest for interfering with the officers’ duties. fees as a result of his arrest. Childers subse-
Childers alleges that the Defendants could quently brought suit in state court under 42
have driven around his truck, and that Hollis U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Defendants
agreed; Iglesias, however, did not believe he arrested him without probable cause in viola-
could drive around the truck. tion of the Fourth Amendment. After removing
the case to federal court, the Defendants
Although the district attorney eventually moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
dismissed the charge, Childers was held in jail Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendants asserted
for over twenty-four hours and incurred legal qualified immunity and argued that Childers’s
fees as a result of his arrest. Childers subse- allegations do not support a constitutional vio-
quently brought suit in state court under 42 lation. The district court agreed and granted the
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Defendants Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This appeal fol-
Mar. - Apr. 2017 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 25
