John Hugh Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16708

On June 16, 2011, a 911 caller (Glazer) reported that a white male (later identified as John Hugh Gilmore) was yelling racial slurs at women wearing hijabs, taking photos, and had threatened physical violence. Officers located Gilmore at a nearby restaurant.
Officers Dubuc and Stewart removed Gilmore from the restaurant using a wrist lock, handcuffed him, placed him in a squad car, and transported him to the Hennepin County Jail. He was booked for disorderly conduct and obstruction; charges later were dropped.
Witnesses (the two women, Glazer, and another bystander) reported that Gilmore yelled at the women, made threatening comments, and took photos; Gilmore disputes their accounts and says he was engaging in political speech and was targeted by an activist crowd.
Gilmore alleged officers destroyed a political sign he carried; officers deny memory of destroying it. Gilmore did not assert a Fourteenth Amendment property-due-process claim in the district court.
Procedurally, the district court granted summary judgment to the officers; the Eighth Circuit majority affirmed, holding officers entitled to qualified immunity (federal claims) and official immunity (state-law false-arrest claim), and rejecting Gilmore’s Monell claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest (Fourth Amendment) — probable cause	Gilmore: arrest lacked probable cause; witnesses and video would show he was peaceful and merely exercising free speech.	Officers: had at least arguable probable cause based on 911 call and eyewitness statements (Glazer, the women).	Held: Arguable probable cause existed at the time of arrest; officers entitled to qualified immunity.
State-law false arrest / "in-presence" requirement	Gilmore: Minnesota requires officers to witness misdemeanors; citizen's arrest was invalid, so arrest violated state law.	City: Glazer’s citizen’s arrest satisfied the in-presence requirement; officers reasonably relied on it.	Held: Ambiguity in Minnesota law (Rule 6.01 vs. §629.36) and controlling precedent meant officers lacked reason to know they violated state law; official immunity applies.
First Amendment — destruction/seizure of political sign	Gilmore: seizure/destruction of his political sign violated his free-speech rights.	Officers: sign was seized incident to arrest; no clearly established First Amendment right preventing seizure/destruction in this context.	Held: No clearly established First Amendment violation shown; summary judgment for officers.
Monell municipal-liability claim	Gilmore: city policies/customs led to constitutional violations.	City: no underlying constitutional violation by officers.	Held: Monell claim fails because no proven violation of federal rights.

Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau, 752 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2014) (qualified-immunity framework)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2011) (arguable probable cause and reliance on victim statements)
Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (probable-cause assessed at time of arrest)
Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 1999) (officer must not ignore plainly exculpatory evidence)
Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010) (state-law false-arrest standard)
Meehan v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2014) (search incident to arrest principles)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (search incident to lawful arrest)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (limits of Fourth Amendment remedies for property handling in custody)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)