Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131

Beaver Creek Mall incident during a June 16, 2006 visit where VP Cheney was present with Secret Service detail including Reichle, Doyle, Daniels, and McLaughlin.
Howards, accompanying his son, made a provocative remark about Cheney; Doyle overheard and relayed concerns to others.
Reichle was dispatched to interview Howards; Howards gave statements later deemed false; Reichle and others monitored Howards.
Reichle arrested Howards for assault on the Vice President based on information gathered and Howards’ prior false statement; Agents Daniels and McLaughlin assisted under Reichle’s lead.
Howards was detained, charged by local authorities under state law, charges dismissed, and no federal charges filed; Howards sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens against Reichle, Doyle, Daniels, and McLaughlin in official and individual capacities.
District court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; defendants appealed the denial; court granted partial reversal and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reichle and Doyle are entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.	Howard s argues arrest violated Fourth Amendment; lack of probable cause given reliance on statements.	Reichle and Doyle assert probable cause for arrest; immunity applies when probable cause exists.	Yes, qualified immunity denied for Fourth Amendment claim proves not clearly established.
Whether Howards' First Amendment retaliation claim against Reichle and Doyle survives qualified immunity.	Arrest retaliatory for protected speech; evidence shows motive.	Hartman v. Moore should require absence of probable cause to survive; not controlling for ordinary retaliation.	No, Hartman does not apply to ordinary retaliatory arrest; claim survives against Reichle and Doyle; Daniels and McLaughlin similarly analyzed.
Whether Daniels and McLaughlin can be held liable for First Amendment retaliation given their roles.	Daniels and McLaughlin participated in arrest; alleged retalatory motive.	They relied on Reichle’s probable cause; no direct retaliatory motive shown.	Yes, Daniels and McLaughlin entitled to qualified immunity for assisting; no independent evidence of retaliatory motive.

DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990) (retaliatory arrest actionable even if another reason would support action)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (no-probable-cause rule in retaliatory prosecution; Hartman not extended to ordinary arrests?)
Hartman v. Moore (duplicate), 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (see above)
DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990) (retaliatory arrest actionable even if another reason would support action)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (establishes the two-prong qualified immunity test; court flexibility in prongs)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (collateral order doctrine; standard for interlocutory appeals in qualified immunity)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (summary judgment on qualified immunity when law is clearly established)
Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1997) (elements of clearly established rights in qualified immunity analysis)
Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Sch., 159 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998) (limits on immunity for discretionary functions; standard for clearly established law)
Jones v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1988) (probable cause standard in arrest contexts)
Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995) (objective probable cause analysis for arrests)