Patel v. Dennett, 389 F. Supp. 3d 888

On April 5, 2014, Sagar Patel (Indian-American) was walking with family on Paradise Boulevard in Las Vegas, had been drinking earlier, and shouted at his friends about finding food; officers Dennett and Smith heard profanity.
Officers stopped their patrol car in front of Patel; facts diverge: Dennett says Patel was agitated, in a fighting stance, resisted, and spun away while being escorted; Patel says he raised his hands, was not told to approach, and was grabbed and forced toward the patrol car without resisting.
During a behind-the-back arm-control to effectuate handcuffs, Patel heard a pop and sustained a distal humerus fracture; paramedics and hospital records attribute injury to arm movement while being placed in handcuffs.
Competing medical experts disagree on causation: Dennett’s expert says the fracture required a forward acceleration (e.g., Patel jumping); Patel’s expert says torsional force from an arm lock could produce the fracture.
Patel was issued citations for disorderly conduct and obstruction; obstruction was dismissed and Patel submitted to disorderly conduct (later dismissed); Patel sues Dennett for First Amendment retaliation/free-speech violation, false arrest, and excessive force.
District court denied Dennett’s summary-judgment motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact on probable cause, causation of injury, excessive force, and that qualified immunity is not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest / probable cause	Patel says his profanity was protected speech and did not justify detention; arrest was retaliatory.	Dennett says Patel’s belligerent yelling and obstruction justified arrest for disorderly conduct.	Denied summary judgment; factual disputes and Ninth Circuit precedent mean qualified immunity is not available on this claim.
Excessive force (Fourth Amendment)	Patel says he was non‑resisting and Dennett’s arm lock broke his arm, amounting to excessive force.	Dennett contends Patel resisted or leaped, causing the break; force was to overcome resistance.	Denied summary judgment; disputed facts about resistance and causation preclude immunity—force that breaks a nonresisting suspect’s arm could be excessive.
First Amendment retaliation	Patel contends he was punished for insulting/criticizing the officer (protected speech).	Dennett contends conduct (disorderly speech/obstruction) justified the stop/arrest.	Denied summary judgment; material fact disputes permit a jury to find retaliation for protected speech.
Qualified immunity	Patel argues rights were clearly established (protected speech; excessive force limits).	Dennett asserts a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause and reasonableness of force.	Denied as to false-arrest and excessive-force claims—the law was clearly established and factual disputes remain.

Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1981) (discusses prosecutor-initiated immunity concept)
Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (officer immune for harms after formal prosecution; not for pre-prosecution conduct)
Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) (officer not entitled to qualified immunity where arrest followed protected verbal criticism)
Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2015) (arrest for profanity/criticism of police can be retaliatory and lack probable cause)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force objective-reasonableness framework)