US Supreme Court Rules in Retaliatory Arrest Claim Case
December 14, 2019 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
Will the existence of probable cause to arrest defeat a claim that the police retaliated against a person for his or her annoying comments? In Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715 (2019), the United States Supreme Court said yes! The Court held that the existence of probable cause to arrest will defeat a claim that the police retaliated against a person for his or her protected First Amendment speech.
Will the existence of probable cause to arrest defeat a claim that the police retaliated against a person for his or her annoying comments? In Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715 (2019), the United States Supreme Court said yes! The Court held that the existence of probable cause to arrest will defeat a claim that the police retaliated against a person for his or her protected First Amendment speech.
THE CASE
Russell Bartlett was arrested by police officers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest on the last night of “Arctic Man,” a week-long raucous winter sports festival held in a remote part of Alaska. According to Nieves, at about 1:30 a.m., he was speaking with a group of partygoers when a seemingly intoxicated Bartlett started shouting at them not to talk to the police. When Nieves approached him, Bartlett began yelling at the officer to leave. Rather than escalate the situation, Nieves left. Minutes later, Bartlett saw Trooper Weight asking a minor whether he and his underage friends had been drinking. According to Weight, Bartlett approached in an aggressive manner, stood between Weight and the teenager, and yelled with slurred speech that Weight should not speak with the minor. Weight indicated that Bartlett then stepped very close to him in a combative way, so Weight pushed him back. Sergeant Nieves saw the confrontation and rushed over, arriving right after Weight pushed Bartlett. Nieves immediately initiated an arrest, and when Bartlett was slow to comply with his orders, the officers forced him to the ground.
THE LAW
Bartlett sued under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the officers violated his First Amendment rights by arresting him in retaliation for his speech. The Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause to arrest Bartlett precluded his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law. In rejecting Bartlett’s contention that the issue is simply whether the officer “intended to punish the plaintiff for the plaintiff’s protected speech,” the Court said:
Police officers conduct approximately 29,000 arrests every day—a dangerous task that requires making quick decisions in “circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” … To ensure that officers may go about their work without undue apprehension of being sued, we generally review their conduct under objective standards of reasonableness. … Thus, when reviewing an arrest, we ask “whether the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the challenged] action,” and if so, conclude “that action was reasonable whatever the subjective intent motivating the relevant officials.” … A particular officer’s state of mind is simply “irrelevant,” and it provides “no basis for invalidating an arrest.
Police officers conduct approximately 29,000 arrests every day—a dangerous task that requires making quick decisions in “circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” … To ensure that officers may go about their work without undue apprehension of being sued, we generally review their conduct under objective standards of reasonableness. … Thus, when reviewing an arrest, we ask “whether the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the challenged] action,” and if so, conclude “that action was reasonable whatever the subjective intent motivating the relevant officials.” … A particular officer’s state of mind is simply “irrelevant,” and it provides “no basis for invalidating an arrest.
NOTE
“[A]s a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions” for engaging in protected speech. Hartman v. Moore, 126 S. Ct. 1695 (2006). Note also that while the existence of probable cause will generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim, officers may not exercise their discretion not to arrest for the purpose of “exploiting the arrest power as a means of suppressing speech.” Nieves at 1727. “For example, at many intersections, jaywalking is endemic but rarely results in arrest. If an individual who has been vocally complaining about police conduct is arrested for jaywalking at such an intersection, it would seem insufficiently protective of First Amendment rights to dismiss the individual’s retaliatory arrest claim on the ground that there was undoubted probable cause for the arrest.”