## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3985 L ISAW I L L I A MS ON, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M ARKC . C URRAN, J R ., Sh er iff of L ak e C ou n ty , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C562

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge

.
A RGUED A PRIL 10, 2012

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 4, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NERa nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. R OV NER, C ircu it Ju dg e. Li sa W i l l i am son w as ar re ste d al ong w i th herhusba n d L ance o n a c harg e that they had sto l en so m eone el se’ s ho rs e. A fterbeing ac quit ted on the char ge, W i l l i am son filed suit aga i nst tw o Lake Co un ty, I l l i no i s s he r i ff’ s de pu t i e s p ur s ua ntt o 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 , alle gin g th at th ey ar re st ed h er w ith o u t p r o b ab le cause i n vi ol atio n ofthe Four th A m endm ent a nd de-2 N o. 09

- 3985 pri ved h er o fherFo urte enth Am endm ent r i ght t o equa lprotecti o n b y a r r es tinghe rb as ed o n n o th i ng m o r e ( sh e co nt en ds) tha n h ers ta tu s as La nc e’ s wi fe. The dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d both clai m s forf ai l ure to sta te a c laim on w h ich reli e fc o u ld be gra n te d

. Wi l l i am s on v. Cur r an , 2009 W L 38176 13 (N

. D

. I ll. N ov. 12, 2009); seeFed

. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6). We a ffi r m.

I. As th i s c a s e wa s d i s mi s s e d a tth e p l e a d i n gs t a g e , we accept the f ac tu alal l ega ti ons ofW i l l i am son’ s fi rs t amende d c o m pl ainta s true , g r an tingW i l l i amso n the benefi t o fev er y r eas onable i nfe re nce that m ay be d ra w n from th os e a lleg at ion s. E.g
. , B o gie v . Ro sen b erg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013). W i l l i am son has r efer re d to and atta ched a va ri ety ofdocum ents to her com pla i nt , incl ud i ng, f orexam ple , the invest i gat orr epor ts that c ulm i nated i n the i ssuance ofthe w ar ra n t f orherar re st. Fe deralRule o fCi vi lPro

cedure 10( c) provi des that “w ri tte n i nstr um ents” at tached to a plead in g becom e pa rt of th at p lead ing for allpu rpo se s. Thu s, whena pl aint i ffattac he s to the c o m pl aint a do cumenttha t qua l i fi es a s a wri tt eni ns trum en t, an d he rc o m pl aintr efer en ce s an d r el i es upon tha t do cum ent in a ss er ti ng hercl ai m , the conte nts o fthat docum ent b eco m e par t of the co m pla i nt and m ay be consi dered as such w hen the cour t deci des a m oti on at ta c kin g t h e s u fficie n c y of t h e c om p lain t. See, e . g. , C enters v. C ent ennial M ortg. , Inc. , 398 F.3d 930 , 933 (7th C ir. 20 05 ); N
. Indi ana Gun & O ut doorSh ows, Inc . v. Ci ty ofN o. 09

- 3985 3 Sou t h Be nd, 163 F.3d 4 4 9 , 45 2-5 3 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). Th e t ra d iti ona l under st an di ngo fa n ins trum en t i s a do cument that defines a part y’s r i ghts, o bl i gat i ons, enti tl em ents, orl i ab iliti es

— a c on tr ac t, for ex am p le. B LA CK ’ S L AW D ICTIO NA RY86 9 ( 9th ed . 2 009). M osto fthe docum ents that W i l l i am son has a pp ended to he r com pla i nt d o not fi t withi n that narr ow un derst anding descri pti on o f a wri tte n i n st rum ent. But w e hav e t ake n a b ro ader vi ew ofdocum ents that m ay be c onsi dered o n a m oti on t o dism i ss, not i ng tha t a co urt m ay consi der, i n additi on to the a l l eg at i o ns s etf o r thi n the c o m pl ainti ts el f, do cum ents that ar e a tta c h ed to the com pla i nt, docum ents th at are ce n tr al t o t h e c om p lain t a n d are refe rre d to in i t, and i nfo rm ati on that i s pro perlysubj ect to j ud i ci al noti ce. G e i nos ky v

. Ci ty of Chi cago , 675 F.3d 74 3, 74 5 n .1 (7t h C ir. 20 12 ); see also Reg e rD e v. , LL C v. Nat ’ l Ci ty Bank, 59 2 F .3 d 75 9, 76 4 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); He cke rv. D e e r e& Co. , 55 6 F.3d 57 5, 58 2-8 3 (7th C i r . 2 0 0 9); Tie rney v. Va hle, 30 4 F.3 d 73 4, 73 8-3 9 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); see, e . g. , B ogie, 70 5 F
. 3d at 608- 09 ( consi deri ng vi deo ci ted i n and atta ch ed to com p lai nt ); B row n m a r kFilm s, LL Cv. C o m edy P a rtners , 682 F. 3d 687, 6 90 -91 (7 th Ci r. 20 12) ( consi deri ng vi deos ci ted i n com plai nt i n supp or t o fco pyri ght infr i ngem e n t clai m and sub m itted by d efend an t in sup p ort o fm oti o n t o di smi ss )

. W ha t m ak es i t appr o pr i at e f o rus to consi der the docum ents t h at W i l l i am son has a tta ched to h er co m p lain t is th at sh e h as n oton ly c i t ed th em in the b od y of her com pla i nt, but she has , to so m e degr ee, re lied on th eir co n te n t s a s s u p p or t fo r h er cla im s. See, e . g. , R

. 3 5 a t8 ¶ ¶ 3 4 , 3 7( c i t i n ga n d at ta c h i n gt wo d iffer en t p olic e re p or ts an d alleg in g t h at n o t h in g in4 N o. 09

- 3985 these r epor ts “m ade any re fer ence to any a ct, er ro r or om issi on of Lisa W il li am son ”). Thu s, i n the f actualsum m ar y that follow s, w e hav e on o ccasi on incl ud ed sta tem ents that ar e dra w n fro m th e do cument s th atW i l l i amso n h as a tt ac he d t o a nd re fer en c ed in her c om pla i nt. W here we have done so, w e have m a de i tc l e a rtha tthi s i s wh a twe a r e do i ng . A s we disc u ss lat eri n thi s o pini on, W i l l i am son has argu ed that i t w as inap p rop riate f or the d istri ct cou rt to consi der these docum ents ( al ong w i th addit i onal do cument s su bmi tt ed bythe de fen dan ts ) w i th o utc o nver ti ng the defendants’ m oti on t o dis m iss i nto a m otio n for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. SeeFed

. R. Civ. P. 12(d). W e r ej ect that ar gum ent forthe re aso ns we detai lbel o w . F o r n o w i t i s s u ffi c i e n t t o n o t e th a t w h e r e we have i ncor pora ted the exhibi ts to the c om pla i nt i nto our sum m ar y o fthe f acts , we have done so based on W illiam so n ’s o w n relia n c e o n th es e d oc u m en ts an d in the absence o fany i nd i cati on fro m her

—b e i ti n th e c o mpl ainto rthe b r i efi ng

— that the docum ents ar e no t genuin e or t hat they ha ve been f al si fi ed i n so m e way. See Heck er, 556 F.3d at58 2 (n ot in g th at p lain tiff d id not c o nt es t au th en ti ci tyo fdo cument s defen dan t so ug ht to use in m oving to di sm i ss com pla i nt ). W e a dd that w h ere we have ci ted docum ents att ributi ng par ti cul ar s t a t e men t s t o Wi l l i a mso n, wh e ther orn o ts he ma de th es e s ta te m en ts ob vio u sly i s w ith inh er p er so n al k n ow ledg e , s o we ma y l e g i t i mat e l y a s s ume tha ti fthe s t a tem en ts h ave no t be ena cc ur at ely r ec o unt ed i n the exhibi ts, she w oul d have d i savo w ed them

. W i th thatN o. 09

- 3985 5 sai d, w e pr oce ed w i th o ur s um m ar y of the f acts as al l ege d i n the com pla i nt. M ar ta Schr oedero w ned a horse nam ed Cheval l o, w hi chs he ha d pur ch as ed i n J an ua r y 2 00 6 fr o m the L an c e W illiam so n Sta b les , L L C (“W illiam so n St a b les ”) in Gu rnee , I l l i noi s, f or$2 0, 000. Lance W i l l i am son ( “Lanc e”) w as the o w ner and m anaging m em bero fW i l l i am son St abl es. S chro eder kept the ho rs e no t a t W i l l i am son St ab les bu t a t F ield & Fe n c es E q u es tr ian C en te r (“F ield & F e n c e s ” ) , wh i c h wa s a l s o i n G u r n e e . C h r i st i ne Cap u son w as Ch eval l o’ s t ra i ner at Fi el d & Fe nces; she had al so nego ti ate d the purchase ofthe hor se fro m W i l l i amso n S tabl es o n S ch r o ede r ’ s be ha l f

. In o rabo ut M ar ch2 00 7, S ch r o ede rde ci ded to sellthe ho r se , a nd she c om m i ssi oned Capu son to lo cate a buyer

. S chro eder ad vis ed C ap u so n th at sh e d id n otw an t e ith er W ill i am son St abl es orLance t o be invol ved w i th the sa l e. Laterthatm onth, ag ai nst S chro eder’ s e xpres sed w ish, Cap uson co ntacte d Lance, i denti fi ed her sel fas C h ev allo ’s t ra in er an d Sc h ro ed er ’s a ge n t, an d to ld h im she was look ing fora buyerf orthe hor se. Capu son ask ed Lance i fhe woul d sh ow Cheval l o to pros pecti ve b uy e r s o n c o ns i g nme nt, g i v e n tha th e wa s a l r e a dy f am i l i arwith the ani m al. Lance advi sed Capuson that he di d not hav e s pace in hi s ba rn for the hor se at that tim e. B u t w h en C ap u so n follow ed u p w ith h im in l ate A pri land re port ed t h at she w as sti l ll oo ki ng f or a b u y e r , L an c e a gr ee d to bo ar d th e h or se an d sh ow h im to pr o spe ct i ve b uy er s. La nc e adv i se d Ca pus on th athe w oul d char ge Schr oedera sta nd ar d m onthl y fee f or6 N o. 09

- 3985 the b oar ding, feedi ng, and car e o fthe hor se; Capu son i n turn c on sented to thi s a rr angem ent a nd di re cted Lance to se n d t h e invoi ces f orthes e s er vi ces to her as Schr oeder ’ s age nt and no t to Schr oeder

. On Ap ril 27, 2007, J enni ferCro w , the barn m anage r f orW i l l i am son S tabl es, p i ck ed up Che va l l o fr o m F i el d & Fe nc es a nd tr a n s p or te d h im to W illiam so n Sta b les , w h er e C h ev allo ther eafter r em ai ned. Li sa W i l l i am son had nothi ng to do w i th thi s a rr angem ent. On or about J une 30, 20 07, S chro eder asked Capu son abo ut the s t a t us o f Ca pu s o n’ s e ff o r t s t o l o c a t e a buye r f orCheval l o. Capu son i n turn cal l ed Lance. W hen Lance i nfo rm ed herthathe ha d not found a buyer, Capu son dem ande d the r e t urn o fthe h o r s e t o h e r . La nce i nf o r m ed he rtha t he woul d r etur n the ho r se whenhe w as pai d fo r havi ng bo ar ded and car ed f orthe hor se. C a p u s o n th e n i n f o r me d S c h r o e d e r f o r th e fi r s t t i me that Ch eval l o w as i n the custo dy ofW i l l i am son St abl es. I t was atthi s point, W i l l i am son al l ege s, thatCapu son and Schr oederco ncocte d a fal se sto rythatLance had sto l en Cheval l o, with the aim of re gaini ng poss ess i on o f the ho rs e without having to pay W i l l i am son St abl es f or i ts se r vi ce s. Capus o n an d S ch r o ede r pr o ce ede d to the Lake County Sher i ff’ s Depart m ent in or der t o fi l e a r epo r t ch ar g i ngW i l l i amso n S tabl es and the W i l l i amso ns w i th the ft. A l though the co m pla i nt por tr ays S chro eder and C apuson as being equal l y c ulpabl e in re port i ng to the S heri ff’ s Depart m ent that Cheval l o had b ee n sto l en and in al l owing a cr i m i nalchar ge to be purs ued aga i nst W i l l i am son, R. 35 at7- 8 ¶¶ 31, 33 , W i l l i am sonN o. 09

- 3985 7

W i l l i am s on, by the way, den i es thats he ha d any i nvol vem en t 1 wi th the h or s e . Th e c ompl a i nta l l e ge s tha ts he n e ve r r od e C he v allo an d , d u e t o a n i njury , she w ou ld no t ha v e b een ab le to rid e a h o rs e a t th a t ti m e. al l eg es tha t Capus o n k eptS ch r o ede ri n the da r kabo ut the f act that she ( Cap uson) had ask ed Lance to t ry to f in d a b u ye r for th e h or se , R. 35 at8 ¶ 35 ; see also R. 35 at 10 ¶ 44

. S o W i l l i am son’s theo ryapparent l y i s that Schr oeder underst oo d fr om the sta rtthatthe hor se had not been sto l en and thatW i l l i am son had nothi ng to do w i th W i l l i am son St ab les’ poss ess i on o fthe hor se, but thatshe did notkno w how i n f act the ho rs e had co m e to b e i n La nc e’ s po ss es si o n. A ccor ding to a wri tte n re p or t byS heri ff’ s Deputy A nthony F anel l a date d Jul y 6 , 20 07, wh i ch W i l l i am son has r efer enced i n and attach ed to herco m pla i nt, Cap uson r epres ented that Lance had aske d to tak e pos se ss ion of C h ev allo for a co u p le of d a y s s o t h at h is w i fe co uld t ryhim o u t an d see i fshe l i ked the hor se. 1 S h e h a d th e r e f o r e a l l o we d L a n c e ’ s e mpl o y e e t o p i ck up Che va l l o a nd t ak e hi m t o W i l l i amso n S tabl es on th e ex p lici t underst anding that he would be re turned after W i l l i am son too k the hor se f ora tes t rid e. A ftera w eek w en t b y w ith ou t t h e h or se be in g re t u r n e d t o th e F ield & Fe n ces stabl e, Capu son conta cted Lance; he a ssur ed her that he would have so m eon e b rin g the hor se back

. That did noto ccur, h ow ev er, and Capu son sai d that her num er ous fol l ow-up tel ephone calls w er e no t r eturned. Capu son did not d iscl ose to Fa nel l a that8 N o. 09

- 3985

The com plain t a ll eges thatFanell a him se lfdid not per- 2 sonal ly i nspectthe p re m ises and that the hors e i n f act w as p resen t. sh e, infac t, h ad as ke d L an c e t o b o a r d t h e h or se atW illi am son Stables and show him to prosp ective cu s t o m e rs orthatshe had agr eed t o pay W i l l i am son St abl es f or Ch eval l o’ s ca re and boa rdi ng. Fanel l a, acc om panie d by Capuson, vi si ted W i l l i am son St abl es on the ev en in g o fJ uly1, 20 07, to i nvest i gat e Schr o ede r ’ s co m pl aint
. The r e, the y met Cr o w, the b ar n m an ag er , w h o re p or te d th at th e W illiam so n s w er e in Cali f or ni a. Capu son checke d the ba rn b ut di d not s ee C he vallo th ere, an d Crow she said did n o t know w he re h e w as . F a n e lla a d vis ed C ro w th at th e h or se sh ou ld

2 be r etur ned to Schr oeder im m edi ate l y o r cri m i nal c h ar ge s w ou ld be filed . C ap u so n w ou ld lat er te ll She riff’ s D ep ut y Ted Si ttig t h at as sh e and Fane ll a w ere prepar i ng to l eave the prem ises , Cro w approa ched Fanel l a a nd to l d him she had j ust s poken with W i l l i a mso n b y t e l e ph o ne , a nd tha t W i l l i a mso n had to l d he r sh e want ed F an el l a an d Capus o n of f th e prop er ty a n d that s he had pl aced a l i en o n the hor se “f orbac k b oar d and otheri tem s. ” R. 50

- 1 Ex. 6 at 4. T h at s a m e ev en in g, ac c or d in g t o Fa n ella ’s re p or t, W ill i amso n s po k e di r ec tly w i thF an el l a byt el eph o ne . S he i nf o r m ed hi m tha t m o ne y was o wed t o “ th em” fo rthe c ar e a n d bo ar d in g of C h ev allo . R. 50 -1 E x . 5 a t 2. Fa n ella i nquir ed w hetherther e w as a si gned ag re em ent t o board the hor se, and W i l l i am son tol d him ther e wasN o. 09

- 3985 9

Schroeder s igned the r ep o rt o n J uly 10, 2007, but the report 3 ap p ear s to ha v e b een p rep are d on J u ly 3

. W e w ill refer to the rep or t as Sch ro ed er’s July 3 rep or t. not. Fa nel l a a dvis ed herthatthe h or se m ust be r etur ned to Schr oe der o r charg es w oul d be fi l ed. W i l l i am son r es po nde d tha t “th ey” ha d a l i eno n the ho r se f o rthe unp aid bo ar ding charg es. Fa nel l a in turn adm oni shed her that the ho rs e co uld notbe h el d “host age ” o ver the unpai d charg es. R. 50

- 1 Ex. 5 at 2. On Jul y 2 , W i l l i amso n S tabl es r ec o r ded a “Mem o r an dum o fS tabl e Kee per ’ s L ien” a g ains t Che va l l o f o rthe unpa i d b o ar d i ngc ha r g es . The l i enwas a ss er te d pur su an t to the I ll inois Inn keep er’s Lien A ct, 770 I L C S 40/49 (2007), w hich i n releva n t p a rt prov ided that “[s] table keep ers an d any p erso ns shall have a li en up on th e horses , carri ag es a n d har ness kept by them f orthe properchar ges due f o rthe k e e pi ngthe r e o fa nd e xp e ns e s b e s t o w ed ther eon at the r equest ofthe own er, or the perso n having the poss ess i on there of

. ” § 40 /4 9( b)

. The l i en was pr epa r ed byLa nc e an d m ak es no ment i o n o fW i l l i amso n. On or about J uly3, S chro eder pr ep ar ed a w ri tte n rep ort tha t she f ile d w ith th e Sheriff’s offi ce. Th at rep ort 3 i s r efer en ce d i n a nd a tt ac he d t o the c o m pl aint
. Am o ng othe r re prese n tat i ons, S chro eder’ s r epor t a sse rt ed that Ch eval l o ha d b ee n r emov ed fr o m F i el d & Fe nc es a nd tak en to W i l l i am son St abl es “w i thout her noti fica tio n an d w ithou t ap p r o v a l. ” R. 50-1 Ex

. 3 at 3. Th e rep ort al so aver re d that S c hr oeder, af ter l ear ni ng tha t W i l l i am son St abl es had pos ses si on of the ho rs e,10 N o. 09

- 3985 l eft m ult i ple unreturned m es sag es f orLance a nd Li sa W i l l i a mso n, who m S c hr o e de r ’ s r e po r t de s c r ib e d a s co ow ne rs of th e stable. L an ce even tu all y had l eft her a v o i c e ma i lo n J u l y 5 t o s a y th a th e h a d b e e n o u to ft o wn a n d t h a t h e w ish ed to sp ea k w ith h er to cle ar u p “t h is h o r s e fi a s c o , ” b u tth a th e wa s o n h i s wa y o u to ft o wn aga i n. R. 50

- 1 Ex. 3 at 2. On Jul y 6, D eputy S i tti g pai d a vi si t t o W i l l i am son St abl es to furtheri nvest i gat e S chro eder’ s com pla i nt. H is r ep ort sum m arizi ng the visit i s attac he d to a nd referen ced i n W il li a m s o n’s com p lai nt
. A ccord ing to Si ttig’s r e p o r t, h e s p o k e wi th Cr o w, wh o c o n fi r me d t h a tWi l l i a mson St ables had posse ssi on o fCheval l o but sa i d that th e ho r se was s ubj ect to a l i enf o runpa i d b o ar di ng charg es. S i tti g a ske d to speak w i th ei therL an c e orLi sa W i l l i am son b u t w as tol d they w er e no t o n the prem i ses . C r o w p l a c e d a t e l e p h o n e c a l l t o Wi l l i a ms o n fr o m t he st ab le s o that Si tti g c oul d speak w i th her

. W i l l i am son tol d Si tt i gtha th e h a d n o b us i ne s s b e i nga tthe s t ab l e, th a t “ th e h or se h ad be en atth eir p ro p er ty for q u ite
. . . so m e ti m e, ” th at“ th e o wnero wed the m mone y, ” an d “thattheyhad a l i en o n the hor se. ” R. 50

- 1 Ex. 6 at 2. Si tti g a pp ri sed herthat, bas ed on what he had be en to l d, the ho r se was n o t l eg al l y o n the i rpr o per tya nd shoul d be r etur ned to i ts own erato nce. A ccor ding to Si tti g, W i l l i a mso n de mur r e d, i nfo r mi nghi m that Schr oeder“a ctual l y b ro ught the horse t o her proper ty f o rhe rt o s el l ” an d tha t “s he woul d no t” b e r eturni ng th e h o r s e . R

. 5 0

- 1 E x. 6 a t2
. S i t t i g, a c c o r d i n gt o th e c o mpla i nt, a dmo ni s he d Wi l l i a mso n t o r e t urn the h o r s e “o r thi s m att erwil lco m e ba ck to bit e yo u i n the ass . ” R. 35N o. 09

- 3985 11
at 15 ¶ 7 5. B efo re Sitt ig left th e p re m ise s, C ro w ga v e h im a co py o fthe l i ens ho wi ngtha t $1 , 98 5 was o we d to the stabl e. S i tti g t ol d her that the l i en was “i rr elevant. ” R. 35 at 8 ¶ 36. Si tti g’ s r epor t al so re counts an i n-per son conve rs ati on with Capu son on J uly7. Capu son re i ter ate d to Si ttig t h at she l ent Cheval l o to Lance to tr y o ut f orthr ee to f o urda y s. W he n s he f o l l o wed u p w ith hi m a t th e co nc l us i o n o f th atpe r i o d, La nc e adv i se d he rtha t he w as not i nter ested i n buyi ng the hor se because he was “to o quie t. ” R. 50

- 1 Ex. 6 at 3. Capu so n a sk ed hi m to se nd the ho r se b ac kt o F i el d & Fe nc es, but m o nths went by w i thout the ho rs e’ s r etur n. C ap u so n to l d Si tti g that sh e h ad vis ite d W illiam s o n S ta b les w ith D ep u ty Fa n ella o n J ul y 1 b utha d no t se enChe va l l o t he r e when sh e l oo ked thr ough the barn stal l s. Capu son denie d that she had se nt the hor se to W i l l i am so n S tabl es f orLance to sel l ; she had onl y g i ven Lan c e p er m i ssi on t o kee p th e horse for a few d a y s f o r a test ride. Si ttig’s r ep ort a c k no wl e dg e d tha tWi l l i a mso n St ab l e s h a d r e c o r de d a l i en ag ai nst the hors e, b ut acc or ding to the c om pla i nt, he ne ve ra sk ed Capus o n abo utthe l i en . Although th eywer e awar e o fthe l i en, S i tt i ga nd Fanel l a di d no t v i ew i t a s a defense to the a ccusati on that the W i l l i am sons had w ro ngful posse ssi on o f Ch eval l o. They concl ud ed that the l i en ha d bee n issued un d e r f alse prete ns es, given th e lack ofa w ri tte n contr act f orbo ar ding the ho rs e. On Jul y 10, a Lake County j ud ge i ssued ar re st w ar ra nts f orbo th W i l l i am son a n d herhusband aftercr i m i nal i nf o r mat i o ns we r e fi l e d b y the La k e Co un t y S t a t e ’ s At-12 N o. 09

- 3985

The com p la int al le ges thatSchroe der and Cap uson all ow ed 4 the crim ina l case to b e p u rsu ed ag ain st W illiam son , d esp ite knowing tha ts he ha d nothi ng what s oe vert o do with the hor s e, i n o rde r t o h el p Sc hr oe der g ai n a s t ra t eg i c adva nt age in he r c i vi l di s pu t e wi th La nc e a nd W i l l i a m s on S t a bl e s . There are al s o addi t i ona l al l eg at i ons c onc er ni ng Sc hr oe der ’ s attor n e y in the civ il action an d her ties to the Sh eriff’ s D ep artm ent, whi c h W i l l i a m s onc i t e s a s a r e a s onwhy the de pu ti es ini ti ated the cr im inal charge againstthe W il li am sons . In view of ou r con clu sion b el o w tha t the d ep u ties had p ro b ab le cau se to a rre st W illiam son f or theft, w e see no nee d to d iscuss thos e addi t i ona l al l eg at i ons i n thi s opi ni on. to r ne y on th e sa m e dat e ch ar g i ngb o tho fthe W i l l i am sons w i th t h eft pursuant to 720 I LC S 5/ 16- 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A)

. La nc e a nd Li s a Wi l l i a mso n we r e a r re ste d on July 14, 2007
. Th ey p lead ed not guilty to th e the ft charg e, and a bench tr i al too k pla ce i n J une 200 8. They were both a c q u itte d: the c ourtf ound that they ha d no inte nti on t o perm anentl y depri ve Schr oedero fposses si on o fthe hor se. In th e m ea n tim e, Sc h ro ed er h ad filed a c i v i l su it aga i nst Lance an d W i l l i am son St abl es i n A ugust 2 007. 4 T h at su it u ltim at ely w as se tt led , an d Sc h ro ed er fina lly re ga i ne d p o s s e s s i o n o fthe h o r s e i n No v e mbe r2 0 08, aft e r sh e p aid W illiam so n Sta b les a p or tio n of w h at it ass er ted i t was o w ed f orbo ar ding Ch eval l o. W i l l i am son subsequentl y fi l ed this suit aga i nst Dep uti es Si tti g a nd Fa nel l a, am ong otherdefendants. Tw o coun ts o fherfi rs t a m ended com pla i nt, bo th nam i ng the deputie s a s d efendants, ar e r el evanttoN o. 09

- 3985 13 th i s appe al : a c l ai m tha t sh e w as ar r es te d wi th o ut probabl e ca use t o bel i eve tha t she had co m m i tte d a c r i me, i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd men t, a nd a cl ass - of

- one Four teenth A m endm ent e qual prot ecti on c laim p re m ise d on t h e t h e or y t h at Sitt ig a n d Fa n ella arrested her b a s ed solel y on h er statu s as L an ce’s w ife w i tho uta nye v i de nc e tha ts he h a d a ny thingt o do w ith W illiam so n Sta b les ’ p os se ss ion of th e h o r se , in contrast t o othe r case s in w hi ch w i ves w er e no t ar rest ed base d on the pu rpor ted cr i m i nalact s o f thei r husbands. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d both c l ai m s pursuant to R u le 1 2(b )(6)

. Wi l l i am s on v. Cur r an , sup ra , 20 0 9 WL 38 17 61 3. W i thr es pec t to the f al se arr es t cl ai m , the cour t r eas oned thatbec ause W i lliam son had been ar re st e d p u rs u an t t o a fac ially va lid w ar ra n t, sh e w ou ld have to s ho w tha tthe de pu t i e s kne w the wa r r a nth ad been i ssu ed w ithou t prob able cau se. Y et, W il li am son ’s conte nti on that there was no e vi dence to i m pli cate her i n th e a l l e g e d th efto fth e h o r s e wa s “ b e l i e d b y h e ro wn Com pla i nt. ” Id. , at* 3. W illi am son’ s o w n sta tem ents, as r ec o unt ed i n the e xhibi ts t o the com pl aint, g av e th e d ep ut ies reason to believe th at W ill ia m s o n h e rse l fs ha r ed po ss es si o n of th e ho r se a nd ha d a n int en t to pe r m an en tly de pr i ve S ch r o ed er of th e us e o fthe hor se. “P lain ti ffadm i tte d that s he had the hor se, i ns i st ed o n h e rl e g a lr i g h tt o p o s s e s s th e h o r s e a nd re fused to r etur n the hor se. ” Id. , at * 4. The l ien , which w as i ssued afterCapu son and S c hro eder com pla i ned thatthe h o r s e h a d b e e n s t o l e n a nd a n i nv e s t i g a ti on ha d c o m m en ce d, di d no t al te rthe l eg alc alculu s. “ Pl ain-14 N o. 09

- 3985 ti ffhas ci ted no author i ty supp or ti ng the c laim thatl aw enf or cem ent m ay not pursue an i nvest i gat i on o nce a lien h as be en filed . I f th is w er e t h e la w , on e u n law fu lly i n po ss es si o n ofpro per tyco ul d ob vi at e cr i m i na lpr o se cuti on bysi m plyfi l i ng a l i en. ” Id. That the depu tie s h ad r ea so n t o b el i eve tha t W i l l i amso n was i m pl i ca te d i n the w rongfu l p ossess ion of th e horse d efeated her class-ofone equalpro tect i on cl ai m as well

. That cl aim would, at a m i ni m um , dem and proof that W i l l i am son had been t r e a t e d d i ffe r ent l y fr o m o the r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, w i thout a r ati onalbas i s forthe differen ti altr eat m ent. Ye t, “ th e f ac ts a l l eged , as a ug m en te d thr o ug h the do cum ents atta c h ed to the Com pla i nt,
. . . pro vi de a ra ti onalbas i s for[ W i l l i am son’ s] ar re st. ” Id. , at* 5.

II. A

. Fa lse arr es t c laim W i l l i amso n’ s cl ai m o ff al se a r r es t hinge s o n the c o nte n tio n th at D ep u tie s Sit tig an d Fa n ella l a c ke d p ro b ab le c au se to be liev e t h at sh e h ad co m m itt ed a c rim e. See, e . g. , Thaye r v . Chi cz e wski, 705 F.3d 237, 246 (7th C ir. 2 01 2); M uc ha v

. Vi l l

. of O ak Br ook, 6 5 0 F
. 3 d 1 0 53, 10 56 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 )

. “ P r o b ab l e c a u s e e x i s t s i f ‘ a tthe ti m e o fthe a r r es t, the f ac ts a nd c i r cum st an ce s wi th i n the o ffi ce r s’ kno wl edg e ar e su ffi ci en t to war r an t a pr ude nt per so n, oro ne o fr ea so nabl e ca ut i o n, i n b el i ev i ng, i n the c i r c u ms t a n c e s s h o wn, th a tth e s u s p e c th a s c o mmi t t e d, i s com m i tting, or i s about to com m i t an offe nse. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng G onz alez v. City of E lgin , 578 F. 3d 526, 53 7 (7 th Cir. 2 00 9) )

. The exi ste nce o fpro babl e ca use doe s no tN o. 09

- 3985 15 depend on the tr uth of a com pla i nt of w ro ngdoi ng. M us t af a v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 442 F.3d 544 , 548 (7th C ir. 2006 ) ( ci ti ng Woods v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 23 4 F

. 3d 979, 98 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) )

. S o l o nga s ano ffi ce rr ea so nabl y b el i ev es the put at i ve v i ct i m o fo re y ewi tn es s to a c r i m e i s te l li ng the tr u th , he m ay rely on th e in for m at io n p ro vid ed to h im by su ch per so ns i n dec i di ng to m ak e an ar r es t, wi th o ut havi ng to co nd uct an i nd ependent i nvest i gat i on into th eir ac c ou n ts
. See, e . g. , Ho lm es v . Vill. of Ho ffm a n E stat es , 51 1 F .3d 67 3, 68 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Aske w v. City o f C hic a go , 44 0 F.3 d 89 4, 89 5-9 6 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); G ram eno s v. Jew el C o s. , 797 F. 2d 432, 43 9 ( 7th Ci r. 1986)

. Thi s i s s o eve n w hen the s uspect deni es an acc usati on o fwrongdoi ng. See , e . g. , Rey nol ds v. Jam i s on , 48 8 F
. 3d 756, 762 (7th Cir

. 2007)

. W hen p resen ted w it h a cred ibl e rep ort of crim inal beha vior, an o ffi cer“ ‘ [ i s] under n o const i tuti onalo bl i gat i on t o ex c lu d e a ll su gg es tio n s t h at th e w i t n e ss or v ict im is not te ll i ng the tr uth. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng B eaucham p v. C ity of Nob l e s vi l l e, Ind. , 320 F.3d 733 , 743 (7th C ir. 2003)). Thu s, as sum i ng, as W i l l i am son has al l ege d, that Schr oe d er and Capu son w er e di sse m bl i ng wh en the y tol d the Sher i ff’ s depu ti es that the W i l l i am son s h ad tak en wrongful p ossess i on o fCheval l o, the f al si ty of th ei rr epo r t byi ts el fdo es no t m ea n tha t S i tt i ga nd Fanel l a lac ke d probabl e ca use t o bel i eve thatW i l l i am son had c om m itted orwas com m i tting a cri m e. W i l l i am son hers el fdoes notar gue that the deputie s cou ld n ot r easo n ab ly c re d it w h at Sc h ro ed er an d C ap u so n h ad to ld th em . Ra th er , W illiam so n m ak es tw o c en tr al p oin ts in su ppo r t o f he r co nt en ti o n th at sh e was ar r es ted w i th o ut pr o babl e cau se: ( 1) tha t sh e was a r r es te d s o l ely o n the16 N o. 09

- 3985 basi s o fherm ar i talr elat i onshi p w i th Lance, wh o w as th e m an ag in g m em b e r o f W illiam so n Sta b les , an d in th e ab se nc e o fa ny i nf o r m at i o n s ug g esti ng tha t sh e he r se l fha d s o m e i nv o l ve m en t i n obt aini ngo rmai ntaini ng poss ess i on o fthe hor se; a nd ( 2) bec ause W i l l i am son St abl es had a l i en o n the hor se, the l i en ne g at ed an y pr o babl e ca us e to b el i ev e th ate i th ers he orherhus band w as i m proper l y e xert i ng co ntro lo ver the ho rs e. Befo re we rea c h t h ese ar gum ents, we m ust fi rs t deal w i th wh at W i l l i am son conte nd s was a proce du ra ler ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o dism i ss the f al se ar re st cla im . In th e d ist ric t c ou rt(as th ey h av e in th is cour t) , S i tti g a nd Fa nel l a in voked the gener alr ule that a per son ar re ste d pu rs ua n t to a f aci al l y v al i d arr est w ar ra nt cannotpre vai lo n a s ecti on 1 98 3 cl ai m o ff al se ar re st
. See, e . g. , B rooks v. Ci ty o f Aurora, Ill

. , 65 3 F
. 3d 478, 483 n

. 5 (7th Cir. 2011); Jur i s s v. M cGowan , 95 7 F
. 2d 345, 35 0 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ) (cit in g, in te r alia , Bakerv. M cCol l an , 443 U .S. 137, 14 3, 99 S

. Ct. 26 89, 26 94 ( 1979 ) ) ; R. 38 at4. W i l l i am son i n turn i nvoke d an excepti on t o that rul e, nam el y that a f aci al l y v al i d w ar ra nt wil lpose no barto a cl ai m o ff al se ar re st w hen th e o ffi cer s r esponsibl e for effectuat i ng the ar re st knew that t h e w ar ra nt was i ssued w ith ou t p ro b ab le c au se . See Juriss , 957 F. 2d at 35 0-51; R . 54 a t 7 -8, 1 0
. O b vio u sly , th e a p p lica tio n of th e ru le and the excepti on begin w i th consi derat i on of w h ether th er e w as in fac t a fac ially va lid ar re st w ar ra n t. S i t tig an d Fane ll a su b m itte d certified cop ies ofboth the w arr an t f o rWi l l i a ms o n ’ s a r r e s ta n d th e c h a r g i n gd o c um en t (the inform ation), as w ellas an ab s t r a c t o f th e cou rtN o. 09

- 3985 17

The warr ant i dent i fi ed W i l l i am s on by nam e, dat e of bi rth, 5 p hy sical d escrip tion , an d ad d ress, am on g oth er d ata ; it (c on tin u ed

... ) proce edi ngs that e nsued fro m the ar re st and charg e. R. 37

- 1. W i l l i am son conte nd s that the co urt reli ed on th es e a n d oth er d o c u m en ts ou ts id e o f th e c om p lain t in or der t o deter m i ne bo th thatthe d eputi es too k heri nto cus t o d y p u r s u a n t t o a f a c i a l l y v a l i d a r r e s t wa r r a nt a nd that, ba se d on the f acts and ci rcum sta nces known to th em , th ey ha d no r ea so n t o do ubttha t th e war r an t w as supp orte d b y pr obab l e ca use. W i l l i am son Br. 22

- 23. I n l o o k i n g t o th e s e d o c u me n t s , Wi l l i a ms o n a r g u e s, t he dist ri ct c ourtr an afoulo fi ts obligat i on, pursuant to F ede r alRul e o fCi vi lPr o ce dur e 12 ( d) , t o c o nv er t th e m o ti o n int o o ne f o rs um m ary j udg m en t an d t o a ff ord her the o pp or tuni ty f ordi sco ver y b ef or e r uling o n th e m o ti o n. The ar gum ent i s fri vol ous a s t o the i ssuance ofan ar re st w ar ra n t. T ru e en ou gh , th e cou rt ’s an aly s i s d id proce ed fro m the p re m i se that W i l l i am son w as ar re ste d p u rs uant to a f aci al l y v al i d w ar ra nt. 20 09 W L 38176 13, at *2 (n ot in g t h at an arr es t w ar ra n t w as iss u ed ) an d *4 (n oting tha t the ar re st w ar ra nt was f aci al l y v al i d). Yet, as the defen d an ts poi nt o ut, the com pla i nt i tse l fal l ege d th ata r r es t war r an ts wer e i ss ue d f o rW i l l i amso n a nd h e rh u s b a n d

. R

. 3 5 a t9 ¶ 3 9 & 1 6 ¶ 8 3
. T h e c o mpl ai nt d id n ot ackn ow ledge t h a t the w arran t for W il li am son ’s ar r es t was f ac i al l y v al i d; b utthe r e ha s n ever be ena ny real d is p u t e that i t w as. To th e ext en t tha t the cou rt 518 N o. 09

- 3985

(

. . . c o ntinu e d) indicat ed that an inf orm ati on h a d been fil ed charging her w ith th eft of Sc hr oe der ’ s hor s e between M ay and J ul y 20 07, in violat ion o f 7 2 0 ILCS 5/16- 1( a) ( 1) ( A ) ; i t r efle ct ed that an ex p arte hea ring ha d b een held an d t h a t p ro b ab le cau se had been f ound ; it com m and ed that W il li am so n b e arres ted and bro ught befor e a j udge without unne c es s ar y del ay ; and th e w a rr a n t w a s sig n ed b y a ju d g e. S eeU.S. C ONST . a me n d. IV ; F ed . R

. C r i m . P . 4(b )(1); 3 W a y n e R . L a F a v e, S EA RCH A ND S EI ZU RE : A T R EATI SE ON THE F OU RT H A MEND MENT, § 5.1(h) ( 5th ed . 20 1 2 ). took not ice ofand rel ie d up on th e cop ies ofthe w arra nt and cr i m i nali nfo rm ati on that the defenda n ts subm i tte d, W i l l i am son has notsho w n that i t depri ved her o fthe o ppo r tu ni tyt o c o nduc t di scovery a nd t o pr es en t contr ar y e vi dence on a point o fge nuinel y di sputed f act. A t fi rst blush , i t m ig h t seem that there is m ore su bsta nc e to W il li am son ’s conte nt io n th at th e cou rt er re d by look in g t o th e fa c t s k n ow n to Sitt ig a n d Fa n ella atthe t i m e o fW i l l i amso n’ s ar r es t i n o r der t o as se ss the vi abi l i ty ofW i l l i am son’ s a l l ega ti on that the dep u ties k ne w the war r an t f or h era r r es t was i ss ue d wi th o ut p ro b ab le c au se . Of te n, an as se ss m en t o f th e fa c ts w ith in an officer’s kn ow ledge w il l be a m atter fo r su m m ary j ud gm ent, i fnottr i al, r atherthan a m oti on t o dism i ss. H owever, as we have no ted, wh at the dis tr i ct c ou rtlook ed t o a s ev id en c e o f w h at Sitt ig a n d Fa n ella knew w er e no t the docum ents that the defendants subm i tt ed an d o fwhi chthe ya sk ed th e cou r t to t ak e j udici alnot i ce, but ra therthe docum en ts that W i l l i am sonN o. 09

- 3985 19 hers el fhad att ached to hero w n com pla i nt. A s we re m ar ked atthe outse t o fo ur f actualsum m ar y, Fe d er al Rule ofCi vi lProc ed ure 10( c) pro vi des thata w ri tte n i nstr um ent a tta ched to a pl ead i ng be com es part of that ple ading, so wh en the pl ai nti ffhas att ached an i ns trum en t to he rc o m pl aint, a cou r t m ayc o ns i derthe conte nts o fthatin strum ent in rul i ng o n a m oti on t o dism i ss. A nd as we noted, thi s ci rcui t has taken a r el ati vel y e xpansive vi ew o fthe do c u m en ts that a di str i ct cour t pr oper l y m ay consi der in dis posi ng o f a m oti on to d ism iss
. Se eGe i nos ky v

. Ci ty of Chi cago , sup ra , 675 F. 3d at 74 5 n .1; He c k e r v . De e r e & Co. , s up ra , 55 6 F

. 3d at 582- 83 ; Tie rney v. Va hle, sup ra , 30 4 F

. 3d at 739. N ei therW i l l i am son north e a pp el l ees have at tem pted to parse o ut wh i ch ofthe docum ents she a pp ended to he r c o m pl aint, i fa ny, mightqua l i fy a s ani ns trum en t that the c ourtco uld co nsi d er i n ass ess i ng the vi abi l i ty ofherco m pla i nt. Instea d, W i l l i am son has m ade a bl anketar gu m en t that none o fthes e docum ents w as appropri ate l y c onsi dered i n ass ess i ng w h et her the defen dan ts ha d probabl e ca us e to a r r es t he r, wher ea s th e defe nd ants have conte nd ed that al lof t h e docum ents w er e f ai r gam e. T he key doc um en ts w hos e con ten ts th e d is t r ict court consi dered i n ass ess i ng the f acts kno w n to the depu ti es wer e th ei ro wn i nv es ti g at ive repo r ts , a l o ngwi ththe w ri tte n sta tem ents that Schr oederand C ap uson s ubm i tte d to the S heri ff’ s Depart m ent; and w e b elie ve that the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y t oo k these docum ents i nto account. W i l l i am son not onl y a tta ched these docum ents20 N o. 09

- 3985
to her com pla i nt but affi rm ati vel y rel i ed on them in support ofhercl ai m . S he ci ted the r epor ts that Sc h ro ed er an d C a p u s o n filed as p ro of of t h e a lleg ed ly fal se story th at th ey con coct ed i n a n e ff ort to secu re th e r etur n o fChe va l l o wi th o utpa y i ngthe o ut st an di ng bi l lf or h is boar ding. A nd i n both herco m pla i nt and her m em or andu m i n opposi ti on t o the dep u ti es’ m oti on t o di smi ss , s he c i te d the r ep orts pr epa r ed byS i tt i ga nd F an el l a as pr o of th at none o fthe f ac ts kno wn to the two de put i es i m pl i cate d he r se l fi n the po ss es si o n o fthe ho r se . R. 3 5 at8 ¶ ¶ 34, 37; R. 5 4 at6

. S he ha s do ne the sam e in herappel l ate br i ef s. By ci ti ng a n d rel yi ng o n su chdocu m en ts a s affi r m ati ve pr o o fo fhe rl ac ko fi nvol vem ent in the posse ssi on o fthe hor se

— a n d t hus the l ack ofpro babl e ca use t o ar re st her

— W i l l i am son invited the d istri ct c ou rt

— and has l i kewis e invi ted t h is cou rt

— t o c o ns i de r the s e do c ume nt s i n r ul i ngo n the m oti on t o dism i ss. W e shal lhave a l astword to sa y about the di str i ct cour t’ s r el i ance o n the i nvest i gat i ve re port s a nd o ther do cu m en ts a tt ac he d t o W i l l i amso n’ s co m pl ainti n o ur di sc us si on of pr o babl e ca us e a bi t l at eri n thi s o pi ni o n. For the mo men ti ti s e no ugh t o n o t e tha tthe di s tr i ct co ur t di d no t com m i t an y pr o ce dur ale r r o ri n c o nsi d er in g such docum ents i n rul i ng o n the m oti on to dism i ss. The f act th at W i l l i am son w as ar re ste d pu rs uant to a f aci al l y v al i d arr estwarra nt nar ro w s th e ci rcum sta nces u n d e rw h i c h s h e c o u l d p r e v a i lo n h e rf a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m. As we st at ed i n Jur i s s v. M cGowan:N o. 09

- 3985 21 G en er ally , a p er so n arr es t e d p u rs u an t t o a fac ially val i d w ar ra nt cannotpre vai li n a § 198 3 su i t for f al se ar r es t; th i s i s so ev en i f th e ar r es t w ar r an t i s late r deter m i ned to have an i nadequ ate f actual fou n d at ion
. Bakerv. M cCol l an , 44 3 U.S

. 13 7, 14 3, 99 S. C t. 2689 , 2694 ( 1979 ); M a rk[ v. Fu r ay ] , 76 9 F
. 2d [ 1266 ] a t1 2 6 8 [ ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ]
. T h e r e wa s ( a n d s t i l li s ) , h o wever, a recogn ized exc ep tion for s ituation s w he re o ffi cers r es po ns ibl e f o rb r i ng i ngabo uta n un l awful ar re st knew that the ar re st w ar ra nt had i ssued w i thout probabl e ca use; thi s is part i cul ar l y t rue of o ffi cers who kne w tha t th o se who o bt aine d the w ar ra nt had decei ved the author i zi ng bo dy. M a lley v. Br iggs , 475 U

. S. 335, 345, 106 S. C t. 1092 , 1098 (1986); O l s on v. Tyl er, 771 F.2d 27 7, 281 (7th Cir. 1985). U n d er th es e c irc u m st an c es , eve n a fac ially va lid ar re st w ar ra nt does not shi el d o ther w i se unrea sonab l e co nd uct. 95 7 F .2d at35 0-5 1; see also B e t k e r v. G o m ez , 69 2 F
. 3d 854, 86 4 (7th C ir. 2 01 2); Beau ch am p v . Ci ty of Nob l e s vi l l e, Ind. , sup ra , 32 0 F .3d at74 2-4 3; Ne i m an v. Ke ane, 23 2 F
. 3d 577, 57 9- 80 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. Thus, i n or der t o preva il o n her f al se ar re st cl ai m , W i l l i am son ult i m ate l y would have to show not o nl y that there was n o p ro b able cause to b e l i e v e s h e h ad co m m itt ed a c rim e, bu t a lso th at Sitt ig an d F anel l a knew thatthe ar re st w ar ra nt was i ssued w ith ou t p ro b ab le c au se . Juriss , 95 7 F
. 2d at 350- 51. W e m enti oned ea rl i erthatW i l l i am son w as cha rged wi ththe ft pur su an t to 7 20 I LCS 5/ 16

- 1( a) ( 1) ( A). At the ti m e o fthe eve nts a t i ssue i n t h is c ase , thatst atute pro -22 N o. 09

- 3985 vi ded th at “[a] p erson c o m m i ts the ft when he knowingl y: ( 1) [ o] btains or exer ts unauthori zed co ntro l ove r proper ty of th e o w ner; . . . and ( A ) [ i ] ntends to depri ve the o w ner perm anentl y o fth e u se o r benefi t o f t he pr o p e r t y [
. ] ” ( 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n th e c o mpla i nt would notsupport an i nfere n c e that W i l l i am son Stables w rongfu ll y cam e into pos session of Sch roed er’s hor se i n the fi rs t instance
. Recal lthatC apuson, as Schr oeder ’ s a gent, i s a l l ege d to have a sked Lance to ta ke C h eval l o so that he m i ght s how the hor se to pr o spe ct i ve b uy er s. Acco r di ngt o the c o m pl aint, s he l ate r l i ed to the Sher i ff’ s deputi es ( and app ar entl y t o Schr oederas well ) , te l l i ng the m thatLance had as ked to tak e the hor se for a few days so that W i l l i am son co u l d t r y th e h o r s e o u t
. Un d e r e i th e r s c e n a r i o , t he W i l l i am sons fi rs t ca m e in to posse ssi on o fthe hor se wi thCa pus o n’ s co ns en t a s S ch r o ede r ’ s ag en t, a nd thus they d id not wrong fully obtain contr olo verthe hor se. Bu t the st atut e re c ogni zes thata perso n m ay nonethel ess com m i t theft w hen he “exer ts unauthori zed co ntro l over” an oth er pe rson ’s prop erty, as by refusin g to return th e p ro p er ty to its righ tfu l o w n e r . See P eop le v. A lexa nd er, 442 N .E .2d 88 7, 88 9- 90 ( I l l

. 19 82) ( defe nd ant m ay be gui l ty oftheft ba sed so l el y o n hi s know i ng exe rt i on o fu n a u th o r i z e d c o n t r o lo v e ra n o th e r ’ s p r o p e r t y a tt i me ofhi s a rr es t, b ec au se cri m e o ftheft i s no t l i m i ted to or igin al t ak in g of p ro p er ty ); accord People v. Price, 85 0 N .E .2d 19 9, 20 4-0 5 (Ill. 20 06 ) (sa m e); s e eal so , e . g. , People v. Fu ller, 53 3 N
. E.2 d 1111, 11 13 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 88) (w h er e d e fen d an t w as orig in ally giv en m on ey by vic tim to p ostb o nd f o rv i ct i m ’ s j ai l ed daught er, de fen dan tN o. 09

- 3985 23 “was no t au th o r i ze d t o r etai n, s pen d o raba ndo n the $4 00 o ru se i t f o ra ny pur po se o th ertha n” po st i ng bo nd; thus , des pi te e vi den ce o fde fen dan t’ s g o o d i nt en tio n s a t o u ts et, j u ry co u ld fin d t h at on c e v ict im dem an d ed h erm oneybac k a nd defendant f ai l ed to re tu rn it, d efe n d an t in st ea d int en d ed to p er m an en tly deprive v i ct i m o fhe rpr o per ty, the r eb y c o m m i tt i ng cri m e o ftheft)

. The W i l liam sons thus co uld have bee n re as on ablysuspect ed oftheft i ftheywrongfully e xert ed co nt r o lo ve rChe va l l o b y r efus i ngCa puson’s a nd Sc h ro ed er ’s d em an d s t h at th ey ret u rn t h e h or se . I t is in th i s r es pec t th atthe l i e Capus o n a l l eg edly t o l d the depu ti es w as i m port ant, f or i t sugge ste d th at Lance had ask ed t o take Cheval l o j ust fora few days f or the pu rpos e of tr yi ng out the hor se, but th en he ld on to the horse an d r e fused to return Ca p us on’s and Schr oeder ’ s m ult i ple te l ephone ca l l s. U nd erthat scenar i o, we m ay ass um e that Capuson had not agr eed to pay W i l l i am son St abl es for the car e a nd bo ar ding of th e ho r se , tha t ne i th erW i l l i am son St ab l es no rthe W i l l i am son s h ad a l egi ti m ate cl ai m to co m pensati on f o rs uchfee s an d no b as i s to a ss er t a l i en agains t th e ho r s e , an d tha tthe Wi l l i a mso ns thu s h a d n o g r o un ds on w h ich to ret ain p os se ss ion of t h e h or se , pa rt icu lar ly onc e th e She riff’ s d ep ut ies ad m onish ed th em t o re t urn C he vallo to Sch roed er. T h e n ex t q u es tio n is w h et h er , onth e fa c ts alleg ed in the c om pla i nt, the defe nd ants had any r eason to bel i eve th at W il li am son h e rselfw as involved w ith th e stable’s r efus alt o s ur r en derChe vallo t o S ch r o ede ra nd Ca pus o n.24 N o. 09

- 3985 The com pla i nt al l ege s that Lance w as the o w ner and m anaging di re cto r ofW i l l i am son St abl es and that W illiam so n oc c u p ied n o ow n er s h ip or m an ag er ial ro le i n re l ati on t o the s tabl es. W ill i am son thus al l ege s that she had no re sponsibi l i ty f orthe stabl e’ s pos se ss i on o f the ho rs e a nd the auth or itie s had no re aso n to suppose that she m i ght b e cul pable for the stabl e’ s unauthor i zed exer ti on o fco ntro lo verthe hor se. S he co ntends, as we ha ve no te d, tha t th e depu ti es s i m p lya ss um ed sh e w as cul pabl e ba sed o n herst atus as Lance’s wife. Ye t, a l th o ug h W il l i amso n h as a l l eg ed th ats he ha d no i nvol vem ent with the stabl e’ s pos sessio n of the ho rs e, th e i nv esti g at i ve r epo r ts a tt ac he d t o he rc o m pl aint

— w hich , as w e hav e d iscus sed , she invited the cou rt t o e x a mi n e a n d th u s b e c a me p a r t o fh e r c o mpl aint

— i nd i cate thatDeputie s S i ttig and Fa nel l a had at l eas t s om e g ro und s t o bel i eve o therw ise
. First, i t was W i l l i am son ra therthan her husband w ho r esponded to th e d ep u tie s’ in q u iries a b o u t C h ev allo

. Se co nd, i n her m ul ti pl e i nt er ac ti o ns wi ththe de put i es ( di r ec tly a nd th ro u gh C ro w ) , W illiam so n refe rre d bo th to h er se lf in d ivid u ally an d to h er h u sb an d an d h e rs elf join tly i n dis cussin g p oss ess i on o fthe hor se. Fo r exam ple , Cap uson’ s wri tte n sta tem ent o fJ uly7 not es that w hen she and Fa n ella vi si ted the W i l l i am son St abl es on Ju ly 1 , b a rn m an ag er C ro w , afte r sp ea kin g w ith W ill i am son by tel ephone, r epor ted to them that“Li sa had deci ded to pu t a l i en on the hor se. ” R. 50- 1 E x . 4 at 5. F an el l a’ s o wn r epo r t o fJ uly 6 no te d tha t when he spoke di re ctly with W i l l i am son o n the eve ni ng o fJ uly1 ( afterhi s v i si t t o the s tabl e) , W illiam son tol d him thatN o. 09

- 3985 25 th e ho r se ’ s o wnero wed “the m ” m o ne y f o rthe c ar e an d bo ar di ngo fthe ho r se a nd tha t “the y ” ha d a l i en on the hor se f orthe un p aid c h arges . R. 50

- 1 Ex. 5 at 2. I t i s a re aso nabl e i nfe ren c e fro m C ro w ’s s ta te m en t t hat “Li sa ” woul d b e fi linga l i ena g ains t th e ho r se , a nd fro m W i l l i am son’ s s ubsequent r em ar ks to Fanella that “they ” were owed m oneyand had a lie n on the hor se, th atW i l l i amso n w as not a mer e by st an dert o the dispute ove r the h orse but r athershar ed re sponsibi l i ty w i th herhusband i n re fusi ng to tur n ove r the ho rs e t o S c h r o e d e rand C a p u s o n . S i t t i g ’ s r e p o r to fh i s o wn vi si t t o the s tabl e o n J uly6, and hi s t el ephone co nver sati o n wi thW il l i amso n dur i ngthi s vi si t, s uppo r ts the sa m e in fer en c e. W illiam so n, ac c or d in g t o Sit tig, told hi m that“the hor se had been a t the ir proper ty f or q u i t e s o me t i me , ” th a tth e h o r s e ’ s o wn e ro we d “ th e m” m on e y , a nd that “the y had a l ien on th e horse.” R. 50-1 Ex. 6 at 2. S he al so to l d S i tt i g th at S ch r o ed er “br o ug ht th e ho r se t o herpr o per tyt o s el l ” an d tha t “s he w oul d not” be r etur ni ng the hor se. R. 50

- 1 Ex. 6 at 2. These rem ar ks re i nfo rce the i nfe re nce that W i l l i am son as wel la s he rhusba nd was exertin gc o nt r o lo ve rthe h or se . Third , W i l l i amso n n ev erdi sc l ai m ed i nv o l ve m en t or resp o ns ibi li ty w ith th e horse or w ith th e stable gen eral l y, nor did she say that she w as speaking sol ely as h er h u sb an d ’s re p re se n ta tiv e. Fourth , S chro eder i n her J uly3 sta tem ent r epres ented that W i l l i am son w as a co own ero fthe stabl e. S i ttig and Fa nel l a thus had re a s o nab l e g r o un ds t o b e l i e v e tha tWi l l i a mso n wa s at least pa rtial ly resp ons ibl e for th e stable’s r e fu sal to turn ove r the hors e; and thei r re port s be l i e the co ntenti on26 N o. 09

- 3985

A to r a l a r g u me n t, Wi l l i a ms o n ’ s c o u n s e l f o r th e fi r s tt i me 6 suggest ed that the reports w ere not ent ir el y accurat e i n recou ntin g her statem en ts. B u t no w he r e in th e com p lain t, he r m em or anda oppos i ng the m ot i on t o di s m i s s , or i n the b riefi ng o n a ppea l ha s W i l l i am s on m ade thi s as s er t i on. W hat W il li am son s aid to Crow and to the d ep u ti es has al way s b een a m at t erwithi n h erpe rs ona l kno wle dge. I fthe re por t s di d n ot ac c ur at el y c har ac t er i ze he r s t at em en t s , s he w a s o b lig ed to n o te th a t fa ct ea rl ie r. th at th e d ec isio n to arr es t W illiam so n w as ba se d so lely on herst atus as Lance’s wife. T h e d ep u tie s’ re p or ts of co u rs e c on st itu te d th eir ver si on o fev ents

— m o r e to the po i nt, the i rr ec o unt i ng ofwh at W i l l i am son sai d. A s we hav e disc ussed at som e l ength, W i l l i am son has a tta ched these r epor ts to h e rc o mpl a i n ta n d r e l i e d o n th e m f o rh ero wn p u r p o s e s w i th o u td i s o wn i n gth e i ra c c u r a c y a s s u mm ar i es ofwh at i nfo rm ati on had bee n c om m unica ted to the deputi es concerni ng W i l l i am son St abl es’ posses si on ofthe hor se. IfW i l l i am son had denied the r em ar ks attr ibuted to h er in thes e r epor ts, wh i ch she w as fre e t o d o, th en w e w ou ld in t h e u su al c as e b e o b lige d to cr ed it h er d en ial on a m ot ion to d ism iss
. Seegene rally, e . g. , P eters v. West, 692 F.3d 62 9, 63 2 (7 t h C i r . 2 0 12 ). Ye t, alth o ug h W i l l i amso n de ni es a ny re spo ns ibi l i tyf o rthe ho r s e , s he n e v e r, i n the b r i e fi ngb e l o w o ri n thi s co urt, denie d u tte ring the words S i tti g a nd Fa nel l a a ttr ibute to he ri n the ir re po r ts
. The s ame i s o bv i o us l y t r ue 6 w i th r espectto the w ri tte n statem ents that Cap uson an d Sc h ro ed er filed w it h th e Sh er iff’s D ep ar tm en t: W il-N o. 09

- 3985 27 li am son, f or exam p le, d e n ies th e truth of Sch roed er’s re p re se n ta tio n th at W illiam so n w as a co-o w n er o fW ill i am son St abl es, b u t she does notdeny that S chro eder m ade thatr epres entat i on t o the S heri ff’ s Depart m ent. A nd , m or e ge n er al l y, al though W i l l i am son al l ege s that Schr oederand Capu son w er e m i sr epres enti ng the f acts to the S heri ff’ s Depart m ent, she does not d isp ute what they actual l y tol d the Sher i ff’ s depu ti es. Col l ecti vel y, th es e r epo r ts , a s we ha ve s ai d, i ndi cate tha t th e depu ti es wer e r elying on m o r e th anhe rmar i ta ls ta tu s i n deci ding to ar re st her

— that they had rea son to b elie ve sh e w as d ire c tly inv olv ed in a n d sh ar ed res p on sibi l i ty f orthe re fusalto r etur n the hor se to Schr oeder and C apuson. Thi s, i n turn, pre cl ud es a find i ng tha t they knew the warra nt f orW illiam son’ s a rr estwas i ssued witho ut pro babl e ca use. Ac c o r d i n gt o t h e c o mp l a i n t, S i t t i gd i d a d mi ta tWi l l i a mson’ s cr i m i naltrial t h at “he had no evi dence thatLi sa Wi l l i a ms o n h a d a n y i n v o l v e me n tw i th th e L a n c e Wi l l i a mso n S tabl es i n c o nne ct i o n with its po ss es si o n o fthe H or se and i ts eff or ts to sel lthe H or se. ” R . 3 5 at 20 ¶ 1 07 & 21 ¶ 1 17

. F an el l a al l eg edly made a sim il ara dm i ss i o n. R . 35 a t 1 9 ¶ ¶ 10 3, 10 4. See a lso R. 35 at19

- 21 ¶¶ 102 , 10 5- 106, 10 8- 11, 11 6. W illiam so n h as arg u ed th at th es e a ll ega ti ons ar e s uffi ci ent t o su p p or t hercl ai m that the deputi es knew there was no probabl e ca use t o be l i e v e th a ts h e h a d s t o l e n ( o rh e l p e d t o s t e a l ) the h or se. That m ay be so w hen the al l ega ti ons ar e re ad in i sol ati on, b u t not in the conte xt o fthe com pla i nt as a w hol e. These al l ega ti ons do not pu rpor t t o disa vow the i nfo r mat i o n s e t f o r th i n the de pu t i e s ’ r e po rt s, f or28 N o. 09

- 3985

exam ple , i ncl ud i ng i n part icu l arthe sta tem ents attr ibuted to W i l l i am son i n thos e r epor ts. The d ep u ti es’ ad m issi ons at tri al th u s d o not req uire us to i gn ore th e i nf o r m at i o n kno wn to the de put i es , whi chf o rthe reason s w e hav e d iscus sed did p o in t to W il li am son ’s i nvol vem ent with the stabl e’ s pos se ssi on o fCheval l o. M or eo ve r, th e d ep u tie s’ a d m iss ion s c on st itu te d th eir su bj ec tiv e a ss es sm en t o f th e e vid en c e t h ey h ad (or d id not have) atthe ti m e o fW i l l i am son’ s a rr est
. Bu t, o f co ur s e , the i ru nd e r s t a nd i ngi s i mm a t e r i a lf o rp ur po ses ofthe probabl e ca u se d ete rm i nati on. The st andard go ver ni ng tha t determ i nati on i s a n obj ecti ve one w hi ch as ks w h at a re as on ab le p er so n w ou ld be w ar r a n te d in be l i ev i ngb as ed o n the f ac ts kno wn to the a r r es ting o ffi ce r, no t what th e ar r es ting o ffi ce r ac tu al l y thou g ht or w h at h is m ot iva tio n w as . Silve n v. Ind. D ep’tof Child Serv s. , 63 5 F
. 3d 921, 92 7- 28 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( offi cer ’ s be l i ef as to bas is fordetent i on i rr el evantto pro babl e ca use anal ysi s) (q u oting Potts v. Ci ty of La f aye t t e, Ind. , 12 1 F.3 d 11 06 , 111 3 (7 th C ir. 19 97 )); see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. H ines , 449 F.3d 808 , 815 n.7 (7th C ir. 2006); Ri ch ar ds on v. Bonds , 860 F .3 d 14 27, 143 0-3 1 & n .2 (7t h C ir. 19 88 ); see ge ne r al l y W

hre n v . U ni t e d S t at es , 517 U
. S. 80 6, 81 3, 11 6 S. C t. 17 69 , 177 4 (1 99 6); O rnela s v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U

. S. 69 0, 69 6, 11 6 S . C t. 16 57, 166 1-6 2 (1 99 6); Abb ot tv. Sa ngamon C nty. , Ill

. , 70 5 F
. 3d 706, 71 4 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 3). The f acts kn ow n to Sittig an d Fane ll a, incl u d ing W il li am son ’s own st ate m en ts i nd i cating tha t s he al ong w i th her hu sba nd w as ex erting con trol over th e h o rse, w ere su ffi ci ent to w ar ra nt a re aso nabl e bel i ef that she too w as i nvol ved i n the pu rpor ted the ft.N o. 09

- 3985 29 Pe r ha ps th e depu ti es c anb e faul te d f o rno t l o o k i ng i nto W i l l i am son’ s st at us w i th r espectto the stabl e. S o f ar as th e c om p l a i n t re ve als , th e o n ly ev id en c e t h ey h ad in that re gar d w as Schr oeder ’ s descr i pti on of W i l l i am son as a c o - o wnero fthe stab l e i n the J ul y 3 r epo r t sh e fi l ed w i th the S heri ff’ s D epart m ent. That m ay have be en S ch r o ed er’ s as su m pti o n o r i m pr es si o n; b ut Schr oederwas not si tuate d, as the s tabl e’ s a tto rneyo r i ts empl o y ee woul d ha ve b ee n, t o kno w w ho o wned a nd m anage d the s tabl es a n d co ntro l l ed the hor ses bo ar ded th er e. A n d so far a s t h e d ep u tie s’ o w n rep or ts rev ea l, they m ade no effor t t o asce rt ai n w hetherW i l l i am son was i n f ac t a co - o wnero fthe s tabl e or p laye d a ny manage m ent r ole in the stabl e’ s o perat i ons. These w er e f acts that could h ave bee n ver i fi ed i nd ependentl y, and had the deputi es done so W i l l i am son m i ght no t hav e b e e n a r r e s t e d. H ow ever, the d ep ut ies’ ap p aren t fai lure to l ook m ore c l os ely int o W illiam so n ’s ro le a t t h e s ta b le

— e v e n tho ug h i t m i ght ha ve l ed the depu ties n ot to see k a n ar re st wa r r a ntf o rWi l l i a m son

— does not sugge st that they knew p robabl e ca use t o ar re st W i l l i am son w as l acking. As we ha v e s a i d, W i l l i a mso n’ s o wn r e mar k s t o the de puti es sugge sted t h at she was m or e than a m er e by

sta nd erto the dispute ove r Ch eval l o. The s l i g ht l y mor e di ffi cul t que st i on is whethe rthe stab le’ s li en on C he vallo, of w h ic h t he de p ut ies w ere aw ar e, underm i ned ifnotpre cl ud ed an i nfe re nce that W illiam so n, al o n g w ith h er hu sb an d , w er e w ro n gfu lly exer ti ng co ntro lo ver th e ho rs e. The l i en am ounted30 N o. 09

- 3985
to f or m alco nfi rm ati on that W il l i am son St abl es w as ass er ti n g a l ega lr i ght t o re tain posse ssi on o fthe hor se, ba se d o n un pai d bi l l s f o rthe ho r se ’ s bo ar di ng . ( The Innke ep er ’s L ien A c t w as n otam en d ed to e x p re ss ly au th orize a stable keep er to retain pos session of a b oa rd ed an im al in th es e c irc u m st an c es u n til 20 12 , w ell aft er th e e ve n ts atiss u e h er e o c c u rre d

. See7 7 0 I LCS 40/49( c) , added by Pub. A ct. N o. 97 -56 9 ( enacte d A ug. 25 , 2011 and effecti ve Ja n . 1, 20 12)

. W e m ay nonethel ess ass um e, witho ut deci ding, thatI l l i noi s ca ses gr anted th is rig h t t o a st ab le ke ep er in 2 00 7. Se eTu m a lty v. P a rker, 19 02 W L 1781, at * 3- * 4 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 02) (ow ne r’s surrep titi ou s rem oval ofhorse fr om keep er‘s bar n, k no wi ng tha t k e e pe r ha d l i e n o n ho r s e f or u n p aid bo ar d in g c h ar ge s, am ou n te d to larc e n y ) .) In pract i calte rm s, the lien was al so a warni ng si gn tha t the deputi es w er e pl aci ng t h em se l ves i n the m i dd l e o f a ci vi ldi spute be tw een S chro eder and W i l l i am son St abl es

— one that cou ld b e res ol ved i n ci vi lco urt, as i t ul ti m ate l y was

— w ithou t c rim inal ch arge s. But i ns o f aras W il l i amso n’ s f al se a r r es t cl ai m g o es , the l i en m att er s insof aras i t s ugges te d t h at W i l l i am son St abl es ( and the W i l l i am sons) m i ght ha ve a l egi ti m ate , l ega lgr ound on w hi ch to exer t co ntro lo verthe hor se. H owever, a stab le ke eper’ s l i en i s pre m i sed upon an ag re em en t t o p ay th e s ta b le for bo ar d in g. See Ben de rv. C onsol. M ink R anch, Inc. , 441 N
. E.2 d 1315, 13 20 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 1982 ) ( ci ti ng R eynolds ex rel

. Jones v. Weakly, 12 N
. E.2 d 689, 691 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 38)); see also 3B C .J.S. A nim als § 111 ( W estl aw thr o ug h Mar ch2 01 3)

. S ucha n a g r ee m en t need not be wri tte n , a s S i tti g a nd Fa nel l a a pp ear ed toN o. 09

- 3985 31 bel i eve , see, e . g. , Rey nol ds , 12 N
. E.2 d at 6 92 ( noting tha t re quis i te agr eem ent c an be express ori m pli ed); but noneth ele ss th er e h ad to b e s om e t yp e o f ag re em en t, i d. Ne e dl ess to sa y, i fa stabl e has co nver ted an an im al, i t ca nnot p r o p er ly a ss er t a lien for b oa rd in g t h e a n im al. B end er, 441 N
. E.2 d at 1 420. S o the l ien b egs the questi on: was ther e a n ag re em ent t o boar d C heval l o at W i l l i am son St abl es? The f acts kno w n to t h e offi cer s, as r eve al ed i n both the com pla i nt and the i nvest i gat or y re port s att ach ed ther eto , were i nc onsi ste nt with any a gr eem ent t o pay W i l l i am son St abl es f or boar ding Ch eval l o. W il l i am son hers el fadm i tted t o Fanell a that there was no s i gned ( i.e., w ri tte n) agr eem ent t o boar d C heval l o. A s we have s a i d , t h e la c k of a w rit te n ag re em en t d oe s n otru le ou t th e e xi ste nce o fan e xpress or alag re em ent t o pay W i l l i am son St abl es f orbo ar ding the ho rs e

— whi chthe com pla i nt i n f act att ributes to Cap uson

— or an im p lied ag r ee m en t. Butmor e to the po i nt, S ch r o ede ra nd Capus o n t o l d the de put i es tha t th er e wa s n o a g r ee m en t to boar d the ho rs e. They r epres ented that Lance had as ke d to bor ro w Cheval l o f ora few days to tr y the hor se out an d then i nexpli cabl y r efused to r etur n the hor se. The i ra cc o unti s co nt r ary t o the com pl aint ’ s al l eg at i o ns as to w hat was r ea lly go i ng o n

— that Cap uson in f act h ad en ga ge d L an c e t o s h o w th e h or se an d h ad ex p re ss ly agr eed to pay f or boar ding the hor se at W i l l i am son Stabl es. A gain, however, the com pla i nt does notal l ege th atth e d e p u t i e s kn e w th a tth i s wa s th e a r r a n g e me nt be twe enCa pus o n a nd the st abl e. To the c o nt r ary, the com pla i nt i tse l fas ser ts th at Schr oederand Capu son32 N o. 09

- 3985 decei ved the tw o depu ti es. In shor t, no i nfe re nce ar i ses , ei therfro m the fac e ofthe com pla i nt o r att ached exhibi ts, i ncl ud i ng the i n ve sti gat orr epor ts, thatthe depu ti es had any inkl i ng the y were bein g l i ed to byco m pla i nants. So f aras theyknew, ther e was no agr eem ent t o boar d C h ev all o at W i l l i am son St abl es; r ather, Lance ask ed to ta ke posse ssi on o fCheval l o f ora few days f or hi s o w n pu rp ose s a nd ther eafterr efused

— w ro n gfu lly

— to re turn the hor se. On that und er sta nd i ng o feven ts, th e depu ti es c o ul d l eg i ti m at ely di sr eg ar d the l i en . I n sum , W i lliam son has pl eaded hers el fo ut o fco urt. The f ac ts set fo r thi n b o ththe b o dy o fhe rc o m pl aint and the i ncor pora ted exhibi ts re vealthatthe depu ti es h ad r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe hor se Ch eval l o w as not i n the right fulpo ss es si o n o fW i l l i amso n S tabl es a nd that W i l l i am son w as re sponsibl e a l ong w i th herhusban d f or the refusa l to retu rn th e horse to its ow ne r.

B

. C las s-o f-O n e E q u al P ro te c tio n C laim W i l l i am son al so conte n d s th at the deci si on t o ar re st he rde pr ive d he ro fhe rF o ur te en thAm en dm en t r i g ht to eq u al p ro te c tio n . S e eG e i n o s kyv . C i tyo f C h i c ago , sup ra , 675 F. 3d at 747 ( re cogni zi ng tha t s uch a cla im can be ass er ted bas ed on th e irrati onalo r m al i ci ous a pp l i cati on ofl aw enf or cem ent powers)

. A l though the st andard f or a class-of- one equ al protec tion claim l ike W illia m son ’s c u rre n tly is u n se tt led in t h is c irc u it, se e D el M arce ll e v. Br own Cnty. Corp. , 68 0 F
. 3d 887 ( 7t h C i r. ) ( en banc) ( 5- 5 d ivis ion res u ltin g in n o c on tr ollin g op in ion ), ce rt
.N o. 09

- 3985 33 den ied, 1 33 S

. Ct

. 6 54 ( 2012 ) , the c l ai m a t a m i ni m um w ou ld req u ire p ro of th at th e d efe n d an ts int en tio n ally t r e a t e d Wi l l i a mso n d i ffe r e n t l y fr o m o th e r s s i t u a t e d s i milar ly to h er for n o ra tio n al re as on . Thayer v. C hicze wski, sup ra , 70 5 F
. 3d at 25 4. Li k e th e f al se ar r es t cl ai m , the n, th e cl as s- o f

- o ne e qua lpr o te ct i o n c l ai m hi ng es o n the noti on that the autho ri ti es l acke d probabl e ca use t o ar re st W i l l i am son, as the exi stence o fpro babl e ca use necess ar i l y m eans that th er e w as a l egi ti m ate r eas on t o ar re st h er . Se eKi m v. Ri t t er, 4 9 3 F
. A p p ’ x 7 8 7, 2 0 1 2 WL 4373 342, at* 2 ( 7th Ci r. S ep. 2 6, 2012) ( non- prece denti al dec i si o n) ( ci tingWagne rv. Was hi ngt on Cnty. , 493 F. 3d 833, 8 3 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( pe r c ur i a m), a nd A skew v. City of C hicago , sup ra , 440 F.3d at89 5), cert. denied , 1 33 S . C t. 984 (2013). This cl ai m co nsequentl y f ails f orthe sam e r eas on that th e f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m d o e s . T h e a l l e g a t i o n s o fth e c o mpla i nt, co up l ed w i th the exhibi ts att ac h ed ther eto , i nd i cate thatS h eri ff’ s deputi es w er e dece i ved i nto th in kin g t h at L an c e h ad ta ke n p os se ss ion o f C h ev allo o st en sibl y t o try hi m o utf o ra few da y s, a nd abs en t any a gr eem ent b y the hor se’ s o w ner, S chro ed er, o r her age nt, Capu son, to bo ar d the hor se at W i l l i am son S tabl es a nd t o c o m pen sa te the s table fori ts b o ar di ng and care o f t h e h or se. S o f aras the depu ti es knew, Lance was i n the wro ngi n mai nt aini ngpo ss es si on o fthe ho r s e , a nd the l i e n fi l e d b y W i l l i a mso n S t ab l e s w as a r us e t o gi ve cov e rt o h i s c o nv e r s i o n o fthe h o r s e a nd , qu ite possibly, to e xt ort m one y fr om the h orse’s ow ne r. A nd , as we have di scusse d, the dep u ties had re aso n to b el i ev e, b as ed i n l ar g e par t o n W i l l i amso n’ s o wn i n-34 N o. 09

- 3985
ter acti on with them , thatshe shar ed re sponsibi l i ty alo ng with her husband and W i l l i am son’ s S tabl es f or the pos ses si on of a nd r efusalto sur re nd erthe hor se. I n shor t, the depu ti es had rea sonab le grounds on wh i ch to bel i eve that W i l l i am son, l i ke her husband, w as gu i l ty oftheft, ev en i f, as the com plain t a l l ege s, theyhad been du p ed by C ap us on an d Schroed er.

III. T he district cou rt prop erly d ism issed W il li am son ’s f al se ar re st and cl ass - of

- one equalpro tect i on cl ai m s. Th e f acts se t for th i n the com pla i nt and the exhibi ts re fer enced and i ncor po rated i nto the c om pla i nt i nd i cate that the a uthor i ti es had probabl e ca use t o ar re st her f o rth e fti n v i o l a t i o n o fI l l i n o i s l a w. A FFI RMED .

4- 4- 13