holding that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because “no competent officer would have found probable cause to arrest S.D.” (citing Leonard, 477 F.3d at 355 )
How later courts described this case
- holding that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because “no competent officer would have found probable cause to arrest S.D.” (citing Leonard, 477 F.3d at 355 )
- denying qualified immunity to officer on false arrest claim because “Ohio’s disorderly conduct statute and the First Amendment require more than the uttering, or even shouting, of distasteful words,” and “no competent officer would have found probable cause to arrest [the plaintiff]”
- “Ohio’s disorderly conduct statute and the First Amendment require more than the uttering, or even shouting, of distasteful words.”
- denying qualified immunity for unlawful arrest claim even after a fistfight broke out and the police officers had made an “Officer Needs Assistance” call
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*428 ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Except in unusual circumstances not present here, we should not reverse a district court judgment based on arguments not raised in the district court. Considering such an argument not raised below can be justified today only because we are not reversing the district court, but rather rejecting the appellant’s alternative argument. Doing so precludes the possibility of a second interlocutory appeal from a district court denial of a second motion for summary judgment. But this rationale does not extend to situations where we accept the appellant’s new argument. Litigants should understand that our willingness to consider an argument not presented below in this case depends on our contemporaneous determination to reject the argument.