Randy Childers v. Ed Iglesias
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2379
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Childers owns a Parker County, Texas ranch and called deputies for assistance while evicting a trespasser.
- Deputies Iglesias and Hollis arrived and parked in front of Childers’s truck at the ranch gate; Childers alleges he intended to leave but could not because of their car.
- While Childers was explaining the situation, Iglesias asked him to move his truck; Childers did not immediately comply and was arrested for interfering with officers.
- Childers was detained over 24 hours; charges were later dismissed and he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging arrest without probable cause (Fourth Amendment).
- The district court granted the deputies’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding Childers failed to plead a constitutional violation; on appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest under Texas Penal Code § 38.15 | Childers: he only tried to explain the situation; deputies could have driven/walked around the truck, so no interference | Deputies: failure to move the truck after instruction constituted interference and gave probable cause | Held: A reasonable officer could believe there was a fair probability Childers violated § 38.15 by refusing to move the truck, so probable cause existed |
| First Amendment protection for speech during interaction | Childers: his verbal attempt to explain was protected speech and cannot support arrest | Deputies: the arrest was based on refusal to follow a direction to move the truck (conduct), not the content of speech | Held: Speech explaining the situation may be protected, but refusal to comply with a non‑speech instruction is not protected and can justify arrest |
| Qualified immunity / dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) | Childers: allegations show no constitutional violation, so qualified immunity should not shield deputies | Deputies: qualified immunity applies because a reasonable officer could have believed arrest lawful based on facts known at the time | Held: On the pleadings, qualified immunity applied; dismissal proper because plaintiff failed to plausibly allege lack of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Alldredge, 783 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review in Fifth Circuit)
- True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards and view of facts on dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must allege lack of probable cause to survive dismissal in false arrest claim)
- Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to follow officer instructions can support probable cause under § 38.15)
- Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.) (definition of probable cause in arrest context)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment protection for verbal challenges to police action)
- Carney v. State, 31 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (speech‑only delay is not criminal interference under § 38.15)