Ronald S. Biddle v. Amy J. Martin and Paul Lehmann

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the district court found that “the officers had probable cause to arrest him for . . . disorderly conduct”
• acknowledging that arguing with police officer, even in a loud, offensive manner, may not by itself constitute disorderly conduct, but may qualify “depending on the circumstances and the argument’s tendency to create public disorder”
• noting that, in the context of § 1983 actions for unlawful arrests, “if reasonable police officers would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest [the plaintiff], [the police officers] are entitled to qualified immunity from [the plaintiff’s] suit.”
• finding disorderly conduct and a vehicular offense — “allowing another to operate his van in a manner contrary to law”- — closely related to the offense charged, obstruction of a police officer
• probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct where plaintiff drunkenly had been screaming profanities and making violent arm gestures
• “Whether particular conduct is disorderly therefore depends not only on the conduct itself but also on the conduct’s unreasonableness in relation to the surrounding circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).