Estate of Kenneth G. Dietrich v. Richard W. Burrows

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that officers who know that arrestee has a legitimate ground for acts under investigation do not have probable cause to arrest
• holding that complaint was constructively amended when defendants treated complaint as having been amended even though plaintiffs never actually filed an amended complaint after having been granted leave to do so
• holding that officers lacked probable cause to arrest a suspect when they knew of “facts and circumstances that conclusively established, at the time of [the arrest], that the individual had an affirmative defense to the crime”
• observing that the “law has been clearly established since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Carroll v. United States, [267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925
• denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established “that probable cause determinations involve an examination of all facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge at the time of an arrest,” and those facts demonstrated that affirmative defense applied
• arresting officers were aware that money couriers had an affirmative defense to possession of a concealed firearm if it was for their lawful occupation and that money couriers were often contractually obligated to carry firearms

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).