D.Z. Ex Rel. Thompson v. Buell, 796 F.3d 749

Police received a 911 report of a home burglar described as a black male, probably a teen, wearing a dark shirt and khaki cargo shorts; the caller said she saw the intruder running northbound down an alley.
Multiple officers searched the area minutes after the call. Several officers spotted youths on bicycles matching parts of the broadcast description near the scene. One stop proved not to be the intruder.
Officer Buell heard Officer Golubski report unsuccessfully pursuing a cyclist (D.Z.) and that she could not catch him; Buell then observed D.Z. riding, turning into a nearby driveway, dismounting, and placing his hands on a fence.
Believing D.Z. had tried to evade police and was cutting through yards, Buell ordered him to stop, handcuffed him, and detained him for a show-up; the victim later said D.Z. was not the intruder and he was released.
D.Z. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unreasonable seizure; Buell moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment for Buell; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Buell had reasonable suspicion to stop D.Z. (Terry stop)	Broadcast description was too generic; stop therefore unlawful	Broadcast plus temporal/geographic proximity, matching characteristics, and apparent evasion gave reasonable suspicion	Court held Buell had reasonable suspicion to stop D.Z.
Whether Buell had (arguable) probable cause to arrest D.Z.	No probable cause because D.Z. was not the burglar and did not actually flee	Even if no actual probable cause, Buell reasonably (objectively) believed he had probable cause based on observed conduct	Court held Buell was entitled to qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause
Whether qualified immunity protects Buell	N/A—claims challenge constitutionality of seizure	Qualified immunity applies if officer did not violate clearly established law or had arguable probable cause	Court held Buell entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claim
Whether the district court abused discretion by excluding plaintiff’s expert at summary judgment	Excluding the expert evidence improperly deprived D.Z. of material facts	District court reasonably declined to consider unspecific expert materials that the plaintiff failed to present or argue adequately	Court held no abuse of discretion in excluding the expert testimony

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion)
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (defines probable cause standard for arrests)
Humphrey v. Staszak, 148 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity where officer reasonably believes probable cause exists)
Edwards v. Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1995) (officers entitled to immunity if belief in probable cause was objectively reasonable)
Catlin v. City of Wheaton, 574 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment and qualified immunity)