Richard E. Maxwell v. The City of Indianapolis, Sergeant Harry Gurnell, Officer Dennis Rahn, and Officer George Diehl

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, “[i]f the underlying facts supporting the probable cause determination are not in dispute, the court can decide whether probable cause exists”
• explaining that, “[i]f the underlying facts supporting the probable cause determination are not in dispute, the court can decide whether probable cause exists”
• observing that different conclusions can be reached about the existence of probable cause based on either “the facts or the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them”
• explaining that, “[i]f the underlying facts supporting the probable cause determination are not in dispute, the court can decide whether probable cause exists”
• explaining that, “[i]f the underlying facts supporting the probable cause determination are not in dispute, the court can decide whether probable cause exists”
• noting that “an otherwise credible victim identification would not provide probable cause if police officers contemporaneously possessed reliable DNA evidence which determined conclusively that the accused could not have committed the crime”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).