Jones v. Clark
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 707
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jones, a ComEd meter reader, was stopped and arrested in Braidwood, Illinois after a 911 caller claimed a person of color was taking house photos.
- Officers Clark and Kaminski determined Jones was reading meters and that she possessed ComEd identification; the stop continued beyond initial questioning.
- Jones claimed Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures; the district court found material factual disputes precluded summary judgment on immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity, and defendants appeal the denial as a collateral-order appeal under Mitchell and related precedents.
- The Seventh Circuit addressed whether the case is appropriate for collateral-order review and then evaluated the constitutional legality of the stop and arrest under clearly established law.
- The court ultimately affirmed the district court, holding Jones’s stop and arrest not protected by qualified immunity and remanding for proceedings on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop/detention violated the Fourth Amendment | Jones argues no reasonable suspicion existed. | Clark and Kaminski contend there was reasonable suspicion to stop. | Jones's stop violated the Fourth Amendment; no reasonable suspicion supports the stop. |
| Whether there was probable cause for arrest | Jones asserts no probable cause to arrest for obstructing a peace officer or disorderly conduct. | Officers claim probable cause or arguable probable cause for arrest. | No probable cause supported arrest for obstructing a peace officer or disorderly conduct. |
| Whether the appellate review is proper collateral-order review | Qualified-immunity denial should be reviewed as a merits issue on appeal. | Denial is a collateral-order issue appealing legal questions only. | Collateral-order appeal proper; court may review legal questions tied to immunity separate from merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (establishes collateral-order appeal for qualified-immunity orders)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (limits appeal of summary-judgment on immunity to legal questions)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (evidentiary-sufficiency determinations in immunity cases not immediately appealable)
- Via v. LaGrand, 469 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2006) (limits on testing disputed facts in collateral-order appeals)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies two-step approach to qualified immunity)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step framework for qualified immunity (clarifying, later modified by Pearson))
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (U.S. 2004) (stop-and-identify statutes require initial stop grounded in reasonable suspicion)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1979) (mere presence or innocuous conduct cannot establish reasonable suspicion)
- Raby, 40 Ill.2d 392 (Ill. 1968) (Illinois obstruction standard requires an obstructive physical act, not mere argument)
- Williams v. Jaglowski, 269 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2001) (absence of probable cause where no physical act impeded police duties)
- Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (reasonable suspicion must be based on objective factors articulating crime)
- Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, 434 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2006) (clearly established rights for stop and seizure analyzed)