Patrizi v. Huff, 821 F. Supp. 2d 926

Background

Patrizi, an attorney, was arrested at the Bounce nightclub for obstructing official business during a police interview of Mills and others about an alleged assault.
Officers Connole and Huff questioned Mills and others near an exit; Patrizi joined the group and questioned the officers, at times advising her friends of their rights.
Patrizi was arrested after refusal to leave the scene; the arrest report alleges she blocked the officers and interfered with the interview, while video evidence disputed some arrest-report details.
The Cleveland Prosecutor dismissed the obstructing official business charges against Patrizi, though the § 1983 claim remained live in federal court.
The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing probable cause or, alternatively, qualified immunity; the magistrate judge denied, and the district court adopted the denial on de novo review.
The court ultimately held there were genuine issues of material fact regarding probable cause and that Patrizi’s rights were not clearly established, denying summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to arrest Patrizi for obstructing official business?	Patrizi contends no probable cause existed.	Huff/Connole maintain probable cause or a reasonable belief supported the arrest.	Probable cause was not clearly established; jury question on reasonableness.
Was Patrizi’s right not to be arrested without probable cause clearly established?	Patrizi had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to be arrested without probable cause.	Officers acted under an objectively reasonable belief or that the law was ambiguous as to the affirmative act.	The right was clearly established; defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment denied.

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir.1999) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
In re DeFillippo (Michigan v. DeFillippo), 443 U.S. 31 (Supreme Court) (probable cause defined; standard for arrests)
Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579 (6th Cir.1999) (probable cause and Fourth Amendment arrest standard)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court) (two-step qualified immunity analysis (initially mandatory))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court) (modifies Saucier by allowing flexible sequencing of immunity analysis)
City of Hill v. Houston, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment limits on prohibiting speech that interrupts police)
Wellman v. City of Cleveland, 173 Ohio App.3d 494 (Ohio Ct.App.2007) (boisterous conduct must impede officer performance to convict for obstructing)
State v. Reichbaum, 112 Ohio App.3d 79 (Ohio Ct.App.1996) (multiple affirmative acts can support obstruction conviction)
City of Cleveland v. Kristoff, 2002 WL 441584 (Ohio Ct.App.2002) (speech may disturb but not necessarily obstruct unless it impedes duties)
King v. Ambs, 519 F.3d 607 (6th Cir.2008) (spoken interruptions can constitute obstruction when they amount to physical interference)
Lyons v. City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (hostile or abusive speech analysis in obstruction cases)
Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.2009) (probable cause analysis relevant to qualified immunity)
Kaylor v. Rankin, 356 F.Supp.2d 839 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (affirmative-act requirement for obstructing official business)