Chevallier v. Hand, 884 F. Supp. 2d 807

Plaintiff alleges Deputy Hand arrested him at his residence on August 16, 2010 for misdemeanor offenses that did not occur in Hand's presence and without a warrant.
Plaintiff, who was 81, contends the arrest involved pepper spray, a ground takedown, and injuries during the process.
Plaintiff alleges false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiff was charged with disorderly conduct, harassment, criminal trespass, and refusal to submit to arrest after the arrest.
Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on false arrest/imprisonment, arguing no genuine factual dispute on those claims; disputes exist regarding excessive force.
The court finds there are disputes of material fact relevant to whether there was probable cause to arrest and thus declines to grant summary judgment on false arrest/imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether qualified immunity shields true acts of arrest	Plaintiff argues lack of probable cause defeats immunity.	Hand contends probable cause or the lack of clearly established rights warrants immunity.	Qualified immunity not clearly established; issues of probable cause remain
Whether there was probable cause to arrest and imprison	Facts show absence of probable cause since no warrant and no observed crime.	Combination of dispatch, alleged victim statements, and Plaintiff’s conduct supports probable cause.	Court finds no clear probable cause based on the record; issues of fact preclude summary judgment
Whether the arrest relied on corroborated informant information	Reliance on uncorroborated victim statements undermines probable cause.	Any corroboration in Hand’s knowledge was limited but potentially sufficient per Gates.	Corroboration lacking; probable cause unresolved; summary judgment denied
Whether the absence of a warrant for a non-felony arrest outside presence affects Fourth Amendment analysis	Bad Elk prohibits warrantless misdemeanor arrests outside presence.	Eighth Circuit has not adopted a rigid in-presence requirement; depends on totality of circumstances.	Not clearly established; depends on totality of circumstances; creates material facts dispute

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Hunter v. Bryant, 504 U.S. 224 (1991) (tests for reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause analysis and corroboration standard)
Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir.2010) (absence of in-presence requirement for misdemeanor arrests; corroboration needed)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (dissent cited on in-presence issue; not controlling)
Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc., 28 F.3d 64 (8th Cir.1994) (summary judgment burden and evidence standard)
Wagner v. Jones, 664 F.3d 259 (8th Cir.2011) (qualified immunity for state actors in civil rights suits)
Hannah v. City of Overland, Mo., 795 F.2d 1385 (8th Cir.1986) (well-established that warrantless arrest without probable cause violates Fourth/ Fourteenth Amendments)
U.S. v. Segars, 31 F.3d 655 (8th Cir.1994) (probable cause evaluation via totality of the circumstances)
Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) (an officer may not arrest for misdemeanor outside of presence under common law)
Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir.2010) (Fourth Amendment not strictly requiring ‘in presence’ for misdemeanors)
Ark. v. Headrick, 293 Ark. 433 (Ark.1987) (Arkansas false arrest/imprisonment elements identical; confinement without legal authority)