Tebbens v. Mushol

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials' motion for summary judgment in section 1983 alleging that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff for violating his court-ordered supervision on prior theft charge. Defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff where they were aware of terms of supervision (as well as defendant's conduct that generated supervision order) that prohibited defendant from soliciting funds for charity by using firefighter's boot as collection device, and defendants arrested plaintiff after again observing plaintiff on street using rubber boot to collect money. Defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity where defendants had reasonable belief that defendant had violated terms of supervision given similarity of conduct in using boot to collect money.