Jackson v. Parker
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24683
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Parker stopped Jackson on Lake Shore Drive for a presumed prohibited vehicle and an unlawful lane change, citing Chicago Municipal Code provisions.
- Jackson was detained, questioned, and subjected to field sobriety tests; Parker arrested him and took him to the station for a breathalyzer test.
- Arrest reports initially charged DUI and related offenses; the prosecutor later amended to negligent driving, dropping DUI counts.
- Jackson was convicted after a bench trial of lane-change improper use and address-change notification violations; other charges were resolved in his favor.
- Jackson, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claimed false arrest based on a DUI frame-up but conceded probable cause to stop/arrest for some traffic offenses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Parker, concluding probable cause existed for the lane-change/prohibited-vehicle offenses; the false-arrest claim failed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to stop and arrest | Jackson asserts Parker lacked probable cause to stop/arrest for any offense. | Parker had probable cause to stop for a prohibited vehicle and lane-change violations. | Parker had probable cause; stop/arrest valid under Devenpeck. |
| False arrest framework after probable cause | If frame-up occurred, false arrest claim survives despite probable cause for any offense. | Probable cause to arrest for any offense defeats a § 1983 false-arrest claim. | False-arrest claim barred because probable cause existed to arrest for some offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (police may arrest for any offense if probable cause exists, objective standard)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause need not be tied to the arresting offense)
- Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2007) (probable cause to arrest for other offenses defeats false-arrest claim)
- Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2010) (reaffirms Devenpeck rule in false-arrest analysis)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (constitutionality of arrest for minor offenses in presence)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (state-law constraints do not alter Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Holmes v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 511 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2007) (probable cause analysis applies to arrest charges not initially relied upon)
- Chortek v. City of Milwaukee, 356 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2004) (limits of heightened privacy interests in arrest context)
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (probable cause to arrest for any offense precludes false-arrest claim)