“[A] permit does not give its holder the unfettered ability to exclude those who are engaged in protected speech at a public event that is being held in a public forum, and does not give a police officer probable cause to aiTest those individuals when none otherwise exists.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] permit does not give its holder the unfettered ability to exclude those who are engaged in protected speech at a public event that is being held in a public forum, and does not give a police officer probable cause to aiTest those individuals when none otherwise exists.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12425
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________
District Court No. 2:12-cv-00117-MEF-SRW
OLAF CHILDRESS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
L. P. WALKER, in his individual capacity,
O. V. CHAVEZ, in his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellants,
CITY OF MONTGOMERY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
MONTGOMBERY COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(February 5, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Olaf Childress brought this action against L.P. Walker and O.V. Chavez
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for violations of his First and Fourth
Amendment constitutional rights in connection with his arrest for disorderly
conduct while handing out political pamphlets. Childress also alleged several state
law claims.
The defendants are the police officers who arrested Childress and who claim
qualified immunity from this lawsuit. They assert that they had, at the very least,
arguable probable cause to arrest Childress, and, therefore, did not violate any of
his clearly established constitutional rights. The district court disagreed, however,
holding that Childress alleged and the undisputed evidence supports the conclusion
that he was entitled to be where he was at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, the
district court noted the total absence from the record of any evidence that Childress
was forcing anyone to take his pamphlets, was using loud, abusive, or profane
language, was making threats or obscene gestures, or was blocking pedestrian or
vehicular traffic at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, based upon the record at
this time, the district court held that the officers did not have arguable probable
2
Case: 13-12425 Date Filed: 02/05/2014 Page: 3 of 3
cause to arrest Childress and denied their request for qualified immunity as to his
Fourth and First Amendment claims. 1
The officers brought this appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified
immunity on Childress’ First and Fourth Amendment claims, arguing that they did
have arguable probable cause to effect Childress’ arrest.
Childress has failed to file a brief in response to defendants’ appeal. We
have considered the effect of this failure and would reverse if appellants had made
a showing of prima facie error. However, our review of the record and the district
court’s thoughtful opinion leads us to conclude that the judgment of the district
court is due to be
AFFIRMED.
1
The district court correctly held that Childress’ First Amendment claim depends upon
whether his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest.
3