Reher v. Vivo

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff on disorderly conduct charge stemming from incident in which group of citizens (including one individual with whom plaintiff had turbulent history) accused plaintiff of filming their children in neighborhood park. While filming others in public is not illegal and agitated accusations of parents were not enough to support probable cause by itself, videotaping when accompanied by suspicious circumstances may constitute disorderly conduct. Moreover, one officer, who was aware of turbulent history between plaintiff and one accuser, was entitled to qualified immunity where said knowledge plus agitated complaints of parents at scene could have created sufficient circumstances so as to warrant plaintiff’s arrest. Second officer also was entitled to qualified immunity where he could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that plaintiff was harassing children and alarming their parents.