Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5985
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kennedy challenged a zoning dispute linked to expansion of a nearby strip mall in Villa Hills, Kentucky.
- Kennedy confronted Schutzman, a police officer and building inspector, in the city building; Schutzman left, Kennedy allegedly insulted him in the presence of city workers.
- Schutzman arrested Kennedy for disorderly conduct; the citation referenced verbal abuse in front of public works employees but did not note the volume of speech.
- Kennedy filed suit in state court; after criminal proceedings ended in his favor, the case was removed to federal court, where summary judgment was granted to all but Schutzman.
- The district court denied Schutzman qualified immunity on both Fourth Amendment wrongful-arrest and First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claims; it remanded other claims.
- The Sixth Circuit addressed whether Schutzman is entitled to qualified immunity, reviewing de novo the Fourth Amendment issue and applying Pearson's two-prong test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kennedy's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and whether qualified immunity applies. | Kennedy did not create probable cause for arrest; immunity should not apply. | Arrest was based on reasonable belief of disorderly conduct; immunity should apply unless clearly established law says otherwise. | Kennedy's Fourth Amendment right was clearly established; immunity denied. |
| Whether Schutzman's motive for arrest defeats qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim. | Speech content as a protected insult may motive the arrest; retaliation claim should proceed. | Motivation is not shown; need to prove protected conduct caused the arrest. | Evidence supports content-based motive; Kennedy's First Amendment retaliation claim survives immunity analysis. |
| Whether the First Amendment retaliation claim was clearly established for a public official arresting for protected speech. | Retaliation for protected speech is a well-established violation under §1983. | Qualified immunity may attach absent clearly established precedent in this precise context. | The right not to be retaliatorily arrested for protected speech was clearly established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (qualified-immunity framework for police actions)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity (particularized rights))
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity (modified by Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (reaffirmed discretionary order of prongs in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (speech not categorically unprotected; fair warning requirement)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (First Amendment protects criticism of police; police must tolerate verbal challenge)
- Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2002) (First Amendment value of criticizing public officials)
- Nails v. Riggs, 195 F. App'x 303 (6th Cir. 2006) (sparse case law on Kentucky disorderly-conduct interpretation (unpublished))