D.D. v. James Scheeler, 645 F. App'x 418

Scheeler arrested S.D. for disorderly conduct after crowd-control interaction at a church festival.
S.D. was 14 years old at the time (July 28, 2012) and witnessed a fight at the festival.
Dispute centers on whether Scheeler’s conduct was supported by probable cause and whether the arrest was objectively reasonable.
District court denied summary judgment on all claims except false arrest against Scheeler; it found no probable cause established as a matter of law.
Appellate briefing argued for qualified immunity based on lack of constitutional violation and, alternatively, lack of probable cause; court considers merits to advance the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scheeler is entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.	S.D. lacked probable cause for arrest; district court erred in denying summary judgment.	Arrest supported by probable cause (disorderly conduct/obstruction) and qualified immunity.	No; the arrest lacked probable cause and was objectively unreasonable.
Was there probable cause to arrest S.D. for disorderly conduct under Ohio law?	S.D.’s speech was not fighting words and did not threaten; not conduct constituting disorderly conduct.	S.D.’s conduct and language could be construed as disorderly conduct under §2917.11(A).	No; S.D.’s words and actions did not meet the disorderly conduct standard.
Was there probable cause to arrest S.D. for obstructing official business?	S.D. did not intend to impede Scheeler and communicated her reason for staying.	Staying at the festival while remaining near the exit could impede official business.	No; no purposeful act to obstruct and lack of substantial hindrance.
Whether the juvenile disposition on S.D.’s case established probable cause as a matter of law?	Disposition does not prove admission to disorderly conduct.	Disposition is probative of conduct.	No; the disposition did not establish admission or conviction for disorderly conduct.

Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir.2010) (probable cause standard for false arrest in the Sixth Circuit)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (police may arrest for any offense supported by probable cause, not necessarily the charged crime)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework; court may grant on expectation of no constitutional violation or clearly established right)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (establishes qualified immunity and objective reasonableness standard)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (protects speech against arrest for verbal opposition to police action; First Amendment constraints on police actions)
Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, 635 F.3d 210 (6th Cir.2011) (distinguishes between state-law offenses and federal probable-cause analysis; state offense defined by state law)
Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir.2007) (probable cause standard; objective reasonableness of officer’s belief)
Mingus v. Butler, 591 F.3d 474 (6th Cir.2010) (application of qualified immunity where an issue is raised not in district court; jurisdictional considerations)
City of Kent v. Kelley, 44 Ohio St.2d 43 (Ohio 1975) (fighting words and disorderly conduct standards under Ohio law)