Reher v. Vivo
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18602
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Reher was arrested by Lombard police at Edson Park after a crowd accused him of videotaping children.
- Gabinski knew of Reher’s turbulent history with Outlaw and past alleged misconduct including exposing and violating orders of protection.
- The officers questioned Reher; Gabinski doubted his story of filming wildlife and noted prior allegations against him.
- Vivo handcuffed Reher and informed him of the disorderly conduct charge during transport, the charges were later dismissed.
- Evidence showed neighbors believed Reher was watching or harassing children, with varying credibility of witnesses including Outlaw and Llorens.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Gabinski and Vivo, finding probable cause or entitlement to qualified immunity; Reher appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gabinski had probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct | Reher lacked probable cause; videotaping in public is not inherently unlawful. | Gabinski reasonably believed conduct could constitute disorderly behavior given Outlaw’s accusations and history. | Gabinski had probable cause based on Outlaw’s accusations and Reher’s history. |
| Whether Vivo had probable cause for disorderly conduct arrest | Vivo lacked sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause. | Vivo could rely on neighbor statements and the situation as a whole. | Probable cause was not established by the information Vivo possessed. |
| Whether Vivo is entitled to qualified immunity | Unreasonable arrest; no clearly established right at issue. | Reasonable belief in probable cause could exist; mixed questions of law and fact. | Vivo is entitled to qualified immunity due to reasonable but mistaken belief. |
| Application of the collective knowledge doctrine to Vivo’s knowledge | Knowledge from other officers should be imputed to Vivo. | Evidence of inter-officer communication was unclear; doctrine not applied here. | Collective knowledge doctrine not applied; Vivo still entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Illinois disorderly conduct standards support arrest under these facts | Conduct did not meet unreasonable, alarming, or disturbing criteria. | Certain aspects plus credible eyewitness allegations could justify arrest. | Given mixed facts and credibility, officers could reasonably believe probable cause existed; immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Kaminski, 630 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.2011) (noting videotaping in public is not per se illegal; context matters for probable cause)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir.2008) (summary judgment on qualified immunity review; favorable view of facts for plaintiff for material purposes)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir.2003) (arguing with police cannot alone establish disorderly conduct; objective reasonableness standard)
- BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123 (7th Cir.1986) (police may make reasonable mistakes; qualified immunity for uncertain legal standards)
- Askew v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.2006) (reliance on credible eyewitness statements for probable cause; collective knowledge nuances)
- United States v. Mounts, 248 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.2001) (probable cause standard is objective; officer’s motivation not relevant)
- United States v. Ellis, 499 F.3d 686 (7th Cir.2007) (collective knowledge doctrine considerations; imputation of knowledge among officers)