LUGG, TEVIEAE T., PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Kuehl clearly established the violation because the officer did not witness the event and failed to interview an eyewitness
• holding that Kuehl clearly established the violation because the officer did not witness the event and failed to interview an eyewitness
• explaining that “one factor which cut[] decisively against arguable probable cause” was that the officer “did not observe [the suspect] committing a criminal act—and nobody told him that [she] did either”
• addressing § 1983 claim in which plaintiff alleged “her right to be free from unreasonable seizure [under the Fourth Amendment] was violated because she was arrested . . . without a warrant or probable cause”
• “[W]e may ‘affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record.’” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he bread and butter of arguable probable cause is some observation—either by officers personally or by an eyewitness or victim whose account is communicated to officers—of the actus reus of a potential crime.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).