Mocek v. City of Albuquerque
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22435
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Phillip Mocek filmed TSA agents at Albuquerque Sunport after telling TSA he had no photo ID with him; TSA initiated alternative ID procedures and asked him to stop recording.
- Mocek refused to stop filming and to produce identification; TSA summoned Albuquerque police; Officer Dilley ordered him to identify and warned of arrest; Mocek said he would remain silent and asked for counsel.
- Officer Dilley arrested Mocek for disorderly conduct, concealing identity, resisting an officer, and criminal trespass; police confiscated and deleted Mocek’s camera footage; Mocek was later acquitted at trial on all charges.
- Mocek sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest, First Amendment retaliatory arrest, and sought declaratory relief; he also asserted New Mexico malicious abuse of process and municipal liability against the City.
- The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding officers entitled to qualified immunity and rejecting Mocek’s state-law and municipal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment — warrantless arrest for concealing identity | Mocek: no probable cause existed to arrest him for concealing identity when he did not produce physical ID | Defs: officers had reasonable suspicion of disorderly conduct and arguable probable cause to arrest for concealing identity; qualified immunity applies | Held: stop supported by reasonable suspicion; probable cause to arrest for failure to produce ID was at least arguable and officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| First Amendment — retaliatory arrest for filming | Mocek: filming is protected speech and arrest was motivated by retaliation | Defs: filming at an airport checkpoint is regulable; even if protected, law not clearly established that a retaliatory-arrest claim survives where arrest was arguably supported by probable cause; qualified immunity | Held: defendants entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established that retaliation claims can be maintained when arrest is arguably supported by probable cause |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 | Mocek: City had policy/custom of prohibiting photography and retaliating, and failed to train officers | Defs: complaint lacks factual allegations showing a deliberate city policy or causal link | Held: complaint fails to plausibly allege municipal policy or custom causing injury; municipal claim dismissed |
| Malicious abuse of process (New Mexico) | Mocek: officers filed complaint without probable cause and arrest was pretext to seize/destroy footage | Defs: there was at least arguable probable cause; no procedural impropriety shown | Held: claim fails — no manifest lack of probable cause for the complaint as a whole and no procedural irregularity alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177 (recognizing states may require suspects to identify themselves during a Terry stop)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (invalidating vague statutory requirement to produce "credible and reliable" ID)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (requiring lack of probable cause for retaliatory prosecution claims)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (addressing whether Hartman’s rule applies to retaliatory arrest claims and concluding law was not clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework; reasonable mistakes of law/fact can be protected)
- Keylon v. City of Albuquerque, 535 F.3d 1210 (Tenth Circuit: officer may not arrest for concealing identity absent reasonable suspicion of predicate crime)