Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-06229/USCOURTS-ca6-14-06229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0472n.06

Case No. 14-6229

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER M. HARVEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DARRYL CARR, solely in his individual 

capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

KENTUCKY

BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge.*

COOK, Circuit Judge. Christopher Harvey slapped his son Hunter in the face at a public 

pool. Officer Darryl Carr investigated the incident and ultimately arrested Harvey for fourthdegree assault. After a jury found Harvey not guilty, he sued Carr for arresting him without 

probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment to Carr, and Harvey now appeals. 

We AFFIRM.

I.

In summer 2012, Harvey’s son Hunter spilled a drink at the Benton City Pool’s 

concession stand and refused—despite Harvey’s repeated requests—to clean up the resulting 

 

*

The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 1
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 2 -

mess. As Hunter and Harvey, who worked as a pool manager, grew increasingly angry with 

each other, Hunter began cursing at Harvey and flipped him off. Harvey slapped Hunter in the 

face. From there, witness accounts diverge, with Harvey maintaining that he slapped Hunter just 

once and other witnesses claiming that Harvey wrestled Hunter to the ground and kicked him.

A pool patron witnessed the scuffle and called the police. When Officer Carr arrived on 

the scene, he interviewed a pool employee, Hunter, and Harvey, each of whom told Carr that 

Harvey slapped Hunter. The pool employee only heard the slap, describing it as a “loud pop.”

She further explained that Hunter, Harvey, and “the situation [were] definitely out of control as a 

whole.” Hunter told Carr that the slap hurt “for a couple seconds.” Finally, Harvey admitted to 

Carr that he slapped Hunter because Hunter went “berserk” and “came at me, flipped me off and 

said ‘Fuck You’ so I had to slap him.” He also said that his son had anger issues and had been 

bullied. Carr arrested Harvey.

The state charged Harvey with fourth-degree assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See Ky. 

Rev. Stat. § 508.030. Harvey moved to dismiss the prosecution for lack of probable, and the 

state trial court denied the motion, finding that

sufficient facts are alleged in the citation to find probable cause for the charge. In 

order to consider the motion the Court would be required to hold an evidentiary 

hearing on the issue. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. However, the 

Court is not holding that if insufficient evidence exists at trial that a motion for 

directed verdict would not be considered, if appropriate. 

Harvey moved for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, which the 

court denied. The jury found Harvey not guilty 

Harvey then sued Carr for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also asserted a battery 

claim under state law. The district court determined that Carr was entitled to qualified immunity

and granted his motion for summary judgment. Harvey appeals.

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 2
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 3 -

II.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, affirming if the 

evidence demonstrates that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that Carr is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 434–35 

(6th Cir. 2015). Because the district court granted summary judgment on qualified-immunity 

grounds, we determine whether—viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Harvey—Carr’s 

conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 

police officer would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

III.

On appeal, Harvey argues that Carr lacked probable cause to arrest him for fourth-degree 

assault. First, he contends that Carr had no reasonable basis to believe that he injured Hunter and 

therefore could not have believed that he committed assault. Second, Harvey claims that a 

reasonable officer would have known conclusively that Kentucky’s parental-discipline 

justification statute applied, rendering the slap legal and negating probable cause. Finally, 

Harvey argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Carr on his battery 

claim.

Carr is entitled to qualified immunity from Harvey’s false-arrest claim unless he lacked 

probable cause to arrest Harvey. Wesley, 779 F.3d at 428–29. If the facts and circumstances 

known to Carr at the time of Harvey’s arrest were “sufficient to warrant a prudent man in 

believing that [Harvey] had committed or was committing an offense,” Carr possessed probable 

cause. Id. at 429. Here, the relevant offense—fourth-degree assault—occurs when a person 

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 3
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 4 -

“intentionally or wantonly causes physical injury to another person.” Ky. Rev. Stat. 

§ 508.030(1)(a).

Harvey argues that Carr littered his arrest citation with falsehoods to gin up probable 

cause for the arrest. According to Harvey, Carr falsely stated that Harvey hit Hunter “as hard as 

[he] could” and left a mark on Hunter’s face. Strip away these falsehoods, Harvey claims, and 

the sole fact known to Carr at the time of Harvey’s arrest was the slap. See Sykes v. Anderson, 

625 F.3d 294, 305 (6th Cir. 2010) (instructing courts to set aside allegedly false statements and 

evaluate undisputed facts in a probable-cause inquiry); Hinchman v. Moore, 312 F.3d 198, 205–

06 (6th Cir. 2002) (same). And, Harvey continues, without any physical injury resulting from 

the slap, Carr lacked a basis for charging Harvey with fourth-degree assault. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 508.030, 500.080(13) (defining physical injury as “substantial physical pain or any 

impairment of physical condition”).

But even the undisputed facts establish probable cause. Harvey, Hunter, and a pool 

employee all confirmed that Harvey slapped his son. And Carr knew that the slap hurt Hunter.

These undisputed accounts gave Carr probable cause to believe that Harvey intentionally caused 

physical injury to Hunter. See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 508.030(1)(a).

Next, Harvey argues that Carr should have known that the parental-discipline statute 

justified Harvey’s use of force against Hunter. In Kentucky, a parent may use physical force 

upon his child if he both “believes that the force used is necessary to promote the welfare of [his 

child]” and that “[t]he force that is used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial 

risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or extreme mental 

distress.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(1). Harvey contends that the slap was necessary because

Hunter “came at [him], flipped [him] off and said ‘Fuck You.’” Harvey also maintains that Carr 

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 4
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 5 -

should have known that the scuffle posed no risk of death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, 

extreme pain, or extreme mental distress to Hunter. Indeed, Hunter told Carr that Harvey hit him 

just once and that it only “hurt for a couple seconds.” Based on this information, Harvey argues, 

any reasonable officer would have known conclusively that the parental-discipline statute

protected Harvey’s use of force, and no reasonable officer would have arrested Harvey for legal 

parental discipline.

We do not require officers making arrests to “inquire into facts and circumstances in an 

effort to discover if the suspect had an affirmative defense.” Fridley v. Horrighs, 291 F.3d 867, 

873 (6th Cir. 2002). Nor must officers “conduct [pre-arrest] quasi-trials” whenever an 

investigative target “asserts a purported legal excuse for his actions.” Painter v. Robertson, 

185 F.3d 557, 571 n.21 (6th Cir. 1999). Only if “a reasonable police officer would conclusively

know that an investigative target’s behavior is protected by a legally cognizable affirmative 

defense” does the officer lack a legal foundation for arrest. Id. (emphasis added). In fact, when 

the facts known to the officer track the elements of an offense, we routinely grant qualified 

immunity on false-arrest claims even when the suspect asserts, or circumstances suggest, an 

applicable affirmative defense.1 See, e.g., Fridley v. Horrighs, 291 F.3d 867, 874–75 (6th Cir. 

2002) (affirming summary judgment on false-arrest claim when officers were on notice that 

suspects “were likely to raise entrapment as a defense to any subsequent prosecution,” but still 

could reasonably conclude that the suspects committed a crime); Young v. Owens, 577 F. App’x 

410, 414–15 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity when 

 

1Harvey cites one case applying the applicable affirmative defense: a Kentucky appellate 

court vacated a teacher’s assault conviction under the discipline justification statute. See 

Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 925 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995) (vacating fourth-degree 

assault conviction of a teacher who paddled a student). But Holbrook dealt with affirmative 

defenses in criminal proceedings, not probable cause to arrest, and provides minimal guidance 

here.

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 5
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 6 -

plaintiff had inconclusive evidence of an affirmative defense); Rhodes v. Pittard, 485 F. App’x

113, 116 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment on false-arrest claim when the suspect

told the arresting officer that he violently shoved another but also asserted that his use of force 

was justified to protect his property against trespassers).

This record presents no material dispute of fact whether Carr knew conclusively that the 

parental-discipline statute protected Harvey’s use of force, i.e., that Harvey believed the slap was 

necessary to promote Hunter’s welfare and that the slap posed no substantial risk of extreme pain 

or mental distress. See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.110(1). At the time of arrest, Carr knew that Harvey 

loudly slapped Hunter, causing him pain. Carr also knew that the altercation spiraled “out of 

control.” These undisputed facts tracked the elements of fourth-degree assault, and nothing 

required Carr to inquire further to discover Harvey’s affirmative defense. Fridley, 291 F.3d at 

873. The circumstances known to Carr suggested that Harvey would assert a parental-discipline 

affirmative defense. But given the witness accounts and the “out of control” nature of the fracas, 

Carr could not have known conclusively that Harvey’s conduct fulfilled both prongs of the 

parental-discipline statute.

Finally, Harvey contends that Carr committed battery when he arrested Harvey without 

probable cause. Though he may not use unnecessary force or violence during an arrest, Carr 

may “use such force as was necessary or reasonably appeared to him to be necessary to take into 

custody the person he is seeking to arrest.” City of Lexington v. Gray, 499 S.W.2d 72, 74 (Ky.

Ct. App. 1973); see also Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.025(3). As explained above, Carr had probable 

cause to arrest Harvey, and Harvey does not allege that Carr used unnecessary force or violence

in doing so. Without more, Harvey’s battery claim fails.

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 6
Case No. 14-6229, Harvey v. Carr

- 7 -

IV.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

 Case: 14-6229 Document: 28-1 Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 7