Rupp v. City of Buffalo, 91 F.4th 623

Plaintiff R. Anthony Rupp, III, an attorney, shouted "turn your lights on, asshole" at a vehicle driving at night without headlights, not knowing it was a police car.
The driver, Officer McAlister of the Buffalo Police Department, stopped and confronted Rupp, ultimately issuing a citation for violation of the City’s noise ordinance.
Rupp was detained, provided identification, and reiterated that McAlister had almost caused a pedestrian accident and violated traffic laws by driving without headlights.
At a later hearing, Rupp was found not guilty of any noise violation or crime, and the charges were dismissed.
Rupp sued for malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, false arrest, and other claims; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding Rupp’s shout was not protected by the First Amendment and that probable (or arguable) cause existed for his arrest.
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated summary judgment in part, finding factual disputes were appropriate for jury determination, including whether Rupp’s speech was protected and whether probable cause existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rupp’s speech protected by the First Amendment?	Shouting was warning about public safety, not contingent on knowing driver was a police officer.	Speech not protected because Rupp didn't know he addressed a police officer; not speech criticizing police.	District court erred; knowledge of officer identity not required. Shout may be protected under First Amendment.
Did probable cause exist for Rupp’s arrest under the noise ordinance?	No probable cause; shout was a public safety warning, not unreasonable noise.	Shout was loud, included expletive, disturbed bystanders—enough for probable cause under ordinance.	Genuine factual dispute exists; summary judgment improper. Jury should decide reasonableness.
Was district court correct to grant summary judgment on Rupp’s retaliation, false arrest, malicious prosecution claims?	Disputed facts require trial; claims should proceed.	Probable (or arguable) cause defeats all claims; qualified immunity applies.	Summary judgment in defendants’ favor was improper; claims reinstated for jury trial.
Is Buffalo’s noise ordinance unconstitutional as applied to Rupp?	Ordinance unconstitutionally applied to protected speech.	Rupp was found not guilty; ordinance wasn’t directly applied/ enforced.	Claim properly dismissed; ordinance not applied as he wasn't convicted.

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police unless it constitutes fighting words or creates a clear and present danger)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (Establishes objective standard for probable cause)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Summary judgment applies only when no genuine issue of material fact)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (Qualified immunity shields all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Credibility determinations and weighing of evidence are jury functions in summary judgment context)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (Speech on matters of public concern receives heightened First Amendment protection)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (Defines fighting words doctrine; identifies unprotected speech categories)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Qualified immunity standard for government officials)