Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14229

Courtney sues Trooper Smith and the State of Oklahoma under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional traffic-stop prolongation and arrest plus state-law claims for false arrest/imprisonment, assault and battery, and conversion.
October 25–26, 2010: Smith stops Courtney on the Muskogee Turnpike for speeding and failing to dim headlights; a canine sniff for drugs occurs but yields no alert; Courtney asserts gun is in trunk and a Triple I report later shows a Michigan felony conviction that was a juvenile adjudication.
Courtney provides travel plans and exhibits signs of extreme nervousness during the stop; Smith relies on these factors to justify extended detention and possible arrest.
Courtney is arrested for possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony under Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283(A); he is held for 36 hours; vehicle and gun are seized.
DA later orders Courtney’s release after learning the felony conviction is not valid; the gun is not returned until October 13, 2011; district court grants summary judgment for Smith on qualified immunity and for the State under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
This court affirms in part and reverses in part, holding Smith’s extension of the stop can be unlawful, and that Smith lacked probable cause for the felon-in-possession arrest; the State is not protected by immunity for false arrest/imprisonment and related claims, with remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the extended detention after warning issuance violated the Fourth Amendment.	Courtney argues extended detention was unreasonable.	Smith contends traffic-stop extension was permissible.	Partially reversed; reasonable suspicion may be debatable, denying absolute qualified immunity.
Whether there was probable cause to arrest Courtney for felon-in-possession.	Courtney contends no valid felony conviction justified arrest.	Smith believed a felony conviction existed based on Triple I; arrest justified.	Reversed; no probable cause given juvenile status and records.
Whether the State is immune under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act for false arrest/imprisonment and related claims.	State immunity does not apply where arrest lacks probable cause.	State relied on immunity under 51 § 155(4) symmetrically.	Reversed as to false arrest/imprisonment; remanded for further proceedings.

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (probable cause affects scope of stop; not controlling here)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (arrest reasons need not closely relate to probable-cause offense)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (police may arrest for minor offenses in presence)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (valid stop may become unlawful if extended beyond mission)
Lyons, 510 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2007) (reasonable suspicion required to extend stop after license return)
United States v. Davis, 636 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (analysis of stop scope in reasonable suspicion context)
United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) (evaluates factors for reasonable suspicion during traffic stops)
United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (pre-stop and during-stop indicators of suspicion)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (court may decide which prong of qualified-immunity analysis to apply)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (establishes clearly established standard in qualified immunity)
Overall v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 910 P.2d 1087 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995) (state immunity analysis under Oklahoma Tort Claims Act)
Morales v. City of Oklahoma City ex rel. Okla. City Police Dept., 230 P.3d 869 (Okla. 2010) (limits of § 155(16) immunity with external-law prohibitions)