William Lund v. City of Rockford, Illinois, 956 F.3d 938

William Lund, a reporter for the Rockford Scanner, photographed a police prostitution sting; officers asked him to leave and he said “goodbye officers.”
Officers followed Lund and arrested him for multiple offenses, including driving the wrong way on a one-way street while operating a motorized bicycle (officers observed speeds they believed exceeded the statutory threshold making the bicycle a motor vehicle).
Charges were later dismissed by the state’s attorney via a bare nolle prosequi; Lund then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliatory arrest and for malicious prosecution under Illinois law.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; while the case was pending the Supreme Court decided Nieves v. Bartlett, holding that probable cause generally defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim unless a narrow exception is shown.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit applied Nieves (retroactively), found probable cause for the traffic offense, held Lund offered no objective evidence fitting Nieves’ narrow exception, and affirmed summary judgment on both the First Amendment and malicious-prosecution claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliatory arrest	Lund was arrested in retaliation for protected newsgathering/speech; officers’ statements show motive and admission of arrest for speech	Officers had probable cause (wrong-way one-way driving) and reasonably believed Lund’s photographing could obstruct the sting; Nieves bars claim where probable cause exists; qualified immunity applies	Claim fails: probable cause existed; Lund offered no objective evidence of Nieves exception; defendants protected by qualified immunity
Malicious prosecution (Illinois)	Timing of Lund’s motion and the state’s nolle prosequi implies dismissal for lack of reasonable grounds and favors Lund	A bare nolle prosequi is not a termination on the merits and does not, without more, show favorable termination or lack of probable cause	Claim fails: nolle prosequi is not a favorable termination for malicious prosecution absent evidence it was entered for reasons related to innocence

Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (probable cause generally defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim; narrow exception where officers typically do not arrest similar misconduct)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (at the time, Court had not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause violated the First Amendment for retaliatory-arrest purposes)
Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (Supreme Court rules apply retroactively to cases still open on direct review)
Swick v. Liautaud, 662 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. 1996) (elements of Illinois malicious prosecution claim and rule that bare nolle prosequi is not favorable termination on the merits)
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) (Seventh Circuit precedent granting qualified immunity where probable cause supported arrest in retaliatory-arrest context)
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018) (recognizes risk that arrest authority can be used to suppress speech; discussed in Nieves)
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizes right to record police activity in public)
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (generally applicable laws may be enforced even if enforcement incidentally affects the press)