Pierner-Lytge v. Hobbs

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated her 4th Amendment rights by arresting her on disorderly conduct charge, under circumstances where defendants encountered plaintiff, who had exposed rifle with bolted bayonet and handgun, while seated in bleachers in public park. While Ct. of Appeals declined to rule on whether officers had probable cause to support their arrest of plaintiff on disorderly conduct charge, it held that officers were entitled to qualified immunity, where plaintiff had failed to identify any legal precedent that found existence of 4th Amendment violation under similar circumstances. Moreover, Ct. of Appeals further found that officers could have reasonably determined that plaintiff’s reported conduct was “otherwise disorderly” for purposes of satisfying Wisconsin disorderly conduct statute, under circumstances, where: (1) it was reported that plaintiff openly carried instant rifle and handgun in crowded park while watching families; and (2) officers had learned prior to her arrest that plaintiff had previously resisted arrest, had threatened police officers and had been subject of mental health proceedings.