Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02171/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Lynn
Appellee
Thomas E. Yoakum
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2171

___________

Thomas E. Yoakum, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Brian Lynn, Siloam Springs Police *

Officer, in his official and individual * [UNPUBLISHED]

capacities, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 22, 2005

Filed: May 6, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Yoakum appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his civil rights suit against a Siloam Springs police officer. After careful

de novo review, we affirm. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243 F.3d 457,

461 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.

1997) (standard of review). 

Appellate Case: 04-2171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Entry ID: 1899993
-2-

We agree with the district court that the undisputed facts establish defendant

did not violate Yoakum’s constitutional rights, because the officer had probable cause

to arrest Yoakum for obstructing governmental operations during an incident in the

police station lobby. See Ark Code. Ann. § 5-54-102(a)(1) (Michie Supp. 2003)

(elements of obstructing governmental operations); Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d

306, 309 (8th Cir. 1987) (probable cause to arrest suspect exists where reasonable

officer would believe, based on available facts and circumstances, that suspect was

committing or had committed offense); Kelley v. Arkansas, 55 S.W.3d 309, 311-12

(Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (defendant obstructed governmental operations under Arkansas

law where officer was conducting field sobriety test of motorist in defendant’s

driveway, and defendant exited his house, yelled profanities, and refused to take field

sobriety test, after which motorist stopped cooperating with officer). 

Although some facts are in dispute, they are not material. We also reject, as

unsupported and contrary to the district court’s opinion, Yoakum’s arguments that the

court made credibility findings, and that the court made its probable-cause

determination based on the conduct of Yoakum’s family members. We do not

address arguments Yoakum raises for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Entry ID: 1899993