Brian Ulrich v. Pope County, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10157

Ulrich attended his former girlfriend Mohs's daughter Ronning's high school graduation while a harassment restraining order (HRO) prohibited all contact with Mohs and her children, including indirect contact and Mohs's workplace proximity.
Ulrich knew of the HRO and admitted he attended the ceremony to see Ronning, despite potential contact with Mohs or Ronning.
Deputies arrested Ulrich for violating the HRO; he was detained about 90 hours after arrest.
Ulrich sued Mitchell, Thesing, Pope County under § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations and First Amendment interference, plus a state-law false imprisonment claim.
The district court dismissed the claims, finding qualified immunity for the deputies and no county policy or malice supporting liability, and official immunity shielded the county on false imprisonment.
Ulrich appealed challenging the district court’s rulings on qualified immunity, county liability under § 1983, and official immunity for false imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mitchell and Thesing are entitled to qualified immunity on Ulrich’s Fourth Amendment claims.	Ulrich asserts lack of probable cause to arrest and violation of rights.	Officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest for violating the HRO.	Yes; officers entitled to qualified immunity due to arguable probable cause.
Whether Pope County can be liable under § 1983 for failure to train/supervise and for a deficient policy.	County’s training and policies were inadequate and deliberate indifference caused deprivation.	Isolated incident and lack of demonstrable policy or custom; no causation shown.	No; district court proper in dismissing § 1983 claim against Pope County.
Whether Mitchell and Thesing are entitled to official immunity for Ulrich's state-law false imprisonment claim.	Arresting actions were ministerial and done willfully or with malice.	Officers acted with discretionary judgment; no malice shown.	Yes; officials entitled to official immunity; claim properly dismissed.

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause standard focuses on objective reasonableness)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2005) (arguable probable cause framework for qualified immunity)
Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2011) (arguable probable cause as basis for warrantless arrest)
Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (objective reasonableness of officer belief in probable cause)
Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1991) (quality immunity affords wide latitude for reasonable mistakes)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause standard and objective view of facts)
Cantong v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (Monell framework for municipal liability and custom/policy)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausibility for § 1983 claims)
Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1998) (official immunity scope for discretionary functions)
Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1991) (malice defined as willful violation of known right)