## 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. 08

- 3556 D YT ANIEL M C B R I DE a nd E NGL EWOOD TP C OR PO RA T I ON, I NC ., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v.
B R I AN E. G R I CE a nd C ITY OF P EO RIA, I LLINO IS, D efend a nts-A pp ellees. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06 C1188

—Jo hn A . G orman, Magis trate Judge .
A RG UE D J UL Y 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C U R I AM . D yta ni elM cBri de sued pol i ce o ffi cer Br i a n Gr i c e a nd the Ci t y o f Pe o r i a , I l l i no i s , u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 983 and stat e l aw , fo r ev en ts ste m m i ng fro m an a l l egedl y unl awfula r r es t. A m ag i st r at e j udg e, pr o ce eding w i th the part i es’ co nsent, gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent for the defendants. The j ud ge concl ud ed that the undis pu ted2 N o. 08

- 3556 evi dence es tabl i shed tha t G ri ce had probabl e ca use t o ar r e s tMc B r i d e f o r b a t t e r y . Mc B r i d e a p p e a l s , a n d we affi rm the j ud gm ent.
I . B a c kg r o und M cBri de’s so l el y o w ned cor p or ati on o perat es a cl othing sto re , Tha Pl ace, l oca ted in Peor i a. On October9, 2004, M cBri de had a di sag re em ent with an e m p loy ee, L u s h o n d a G u y t o n, w h o r e s p o n d e d b y c a l l i n gh i m a sh yst erand tel l i ng cust om er s no t t o spend thei r m oney i n hi s s tor e. M cBri d e acti vate d the s tor e’ s a l ar m to sum m on the pol i ce, and then he too k i t upon h im sel fto physi cal l y re m ove Gu yto n f ro m the sto re . A fter a s cuffl e, M cBr i de su cc es sful l y ej ec te d Guy to n fr o m the s to r e, a nd she headed hom e. On the w ay hom e, Gu yto n ch an ged he r min d, c al l ed th e po l i ce he r se l f, a nd r etur ne d t o the sto re to m eetthe pol i ce in t h e par ki ng l ot. Offi cerGri ce r es po nde d t o the a l ar m a nd a r r es te d b o th M cBri de an d G uy ton after int er v ie w in g each and w atch ing p art of a secur i ty vi deo. The St ate ’ s Attor ney di sm i sse d the char ges ag ai nst M c B rid e a ye ar lat er , an d M c B ri d e t h e n init iat ed th is l aw su it cl ai m i ng tha t Offi cerGri ce v i ol ate d his Fo urth and Fi fth A m endm ent r i ghts ( as w el l as st ate l aw ) by ar re sti ng hi m and fi l i ng a com pla i nt witho ut pro b ab le cause. M cBri de also nam ed the Cityo fPeo ri a i n hi s s tat elaw cla im s u n d er a th e o r y of re sp on d ea t s u p er ior. Inh isN o. 08

- 3556 3

M cB ride n am ed h i s c or por at i on as a c o- pl ai nt i ff, but 1 the b u si n e ss h a s no claim s of it s ow n a nd is irrelev an t to this ap p eal. com p lai nt, M cB ride ass e rted that i t beca m e nec essary

1 to re m ove Gu yto n f ro m hi s sto re because sh e w as thro w i ng cl othe s on to the fl oo r, tur ni ng o vercl othe s r ac k s, a nd b r ea king cl o th es ha ng er s whi l e sh o ut i ng pr o f an i ti es a t hi m . By hi s ac co unt, he r emov ed her w i th

ou t harm ing her b y p lac ing both arm s aroun d her, l i fti ng herup, and escor ti ng her out. M cBri de al l ege d that he expl ai ned these ci rcum sta nces to Gri ce a n d sho w ed hi m a surve i l l ance v i deo co rr obo ra ti ng hi s v er sion of ev en ts , bu t, ac c or d in g t o M c B rid e, the offi cer“in te n tio n ally and fa l sel y s tat ed in h is pol i ce r epor t that the vi deo i mag e s o fthe e nc o un t e r b e t we e n M c Br i de a nd Gu y ton w er e uncl ear, ” l eadi ng to hi s a l l ege d l y unl aw ful ar re st an d pr o se cut i o n. The defe nd ants answ er ed the com pla i nt and, after disc ove ry, m ove d f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. They a rgued th a ta l l o fMcB r i de ’ s c l a i ms a r e f o r e c l o s e d b e c ause Offi cerGri ce had p ro babl e ca use t o ar re st hi m f orbat

ter y. Gri ce r el ate d in a deposi ti on that when he fi rs t ar riv ed at th e sto re h e sp ok e to M c B rid e, w h o a c kn ow ledged thatan a rgum en t between hi m sel fand Gu yto n ha d e s c a l a t e d int o a p hy s i c a l a l t e r c a ti o n. McB r i de sh ow ed G ri ce a scr atch o n hi s a rm thathe a ttr ibuted to Guy to n. Gr i ce r ec al l ed tha t he ne xtwentt o the pa r k i ng l ot to i nter vi ew Guyton, wh o tol d him th at M cBri de had hi t he r o n the l eft si de o fhe r he ad w ith a cl o se d fi sta nd4 N o. 08

- 3556 had dragge d her out ofthe s tor e. Gri ce r eco unted that G uy ton ’s left eye ha d som e m inor sw ell ing an d that there w as a s m al l scr at c h o n h erf or ehead. A t that poi nt, Gri ce e xp l a i ne d, h e we ntb a c ki nt o the s t o r e wh e r e M cBr i de sh ow ed him the vid eo record ing from one of the store’s secur i ty cam er as. T ha t video, w hi c h is p art of th e evide nc e at su m m ary j udg m en t, do es no t sh o w M cBr i de st r i k i ng G uy ton, b ut the c om bata nts were notal w ay s in r ange ofthe cam er a. Gr i c e t e s t i fi e d a t h i s d e p o s i t i o n th a t i n wa t c h i ng t he vi deo he saw G uyto n com e into vi ew as she fel l o nto the fl oo r at th e bo tto m o fthe scr een a nd that, as she w as f al l i ng, M cBri de w as ste pp i ng towards her f ro m o ff

- scr een i nto the c am er a’ s v i ew . A ccor ding to t h e defendants, Gu yto n can be se en i n the vi deo g ett i ng up f ro m the fl oo r an d then tou c h in g her forehea d and l ooking into a m irro r. They a rgued th at a r eas onabl e o ffi cerco uld have concl ud ed that M cBri de had str uck Guyton a nd cause d her to fa l l, a nd tha ts he wa s c he c k i ngthe mi r r o r t o s ee i fs h e h a d b e e n i nj u r e d

. G r i c e th e n n o t e d tha t th e t wo we r e o ut o f r a ng e o f the c a mer a a g a i n, b ut a l i t t l e l ate r he sa w cl othe s r ack s fa l l i ng o veras M cBri de w as d r a g g i n g Gu y t o n o u t o f th e s t o r e . Gr i c e a d d e d th a tt he act ofdrag gi ng Guy ton aga i nst he r w i l l co uld al so be chara cter i zed as i nsul ti ng co nd uct co nsti tuti ng a batt er y. I n resp ons e to the d efend an t s ’ m o tion for su m m ary j ud gm ent, M cBri de ar gued that I l l i noi s l aw , 72 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5 / 7

- 3 , g a v e h i m t he r i ght t o e s c o r ta di s r up tiv e per son out ofhi s s tor e a nd thata diff er ent v i deo f ro m a seco nd cam er a c l ear l y s how s the ent i re i nci dent.N o. 08

- 3556 5 H e s tat ed i n hi s deposi ti on that Offi cerGric e r efused to wa t c h the s e c o nd v i de o , wh i c h, a c c o r di ngt o McB ri de, w oul d have dem onst ra ted to the offi cer thathe ha d ac te d law fu lly. M c B rid e a lso p o in te d to G u yt on ’s d ep os iti on i n w hi ch she said thatshe f el l bec ause she r esisted M cB ride’s eff ort to pu sh h er tow ard s the door. Acco r di ngt o M cBri d e, th e al te r ca ti o n e nde d a fte r he “cam e up be h in d Guyton, wrapp ed hi s a rm s a ro und her so she c oul d not r esi st, pi cked her up , and w al ked her to the do o r ” o r, i n o th erwor ds, he “ g av e Guy to n a bearhug, lifte d her up l i ghtl y, and w al ked her15 feetto th e do o r . ” M cBr i de f au l te d Gr i ce ’ s i nves ti g at i o n, a r g ui ng tha t the o ffi c e r c l o s e d hi s e y e s t o f a c t s tha t wo ul d have s h o wnth e r e w a s n o p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s th i m. Inrep ly, th e d efe n d an ts as se rt ed th at n ot h in g w ou ld ha ve c ha ng ed i fOffi ce r Gr i ce had wat ch ed th e se co nd vi deo , whi chM cBr i de i nt r o duce d as a n exh ibi t. Acco r di ng to the de fend an ts, both v ideos cont rad ict M cB ride’s ver si on o f ev ents. The defendants al so conte nd ed that the v i deos actual l y s how M c B ri de engag i ng i n unreasonabl e co nd uct that e xceeds the bo und s per m i tte d by I l l i n o i s l a w. I n g r a n t i n g s u mma r y j u d g me n t f o r th e d e f e n d a n t s , t he m ag i st r at e j udg e obs er ve d tha t th e i m ag e qua l i tyo fthe tw o vi deos i s t oo poorto es tabl i sh the acc uracyo fei ther ver si on o fev ents. B ut the re m ai ni ng un disputed ev i dence, acco rdi ng to the j ud ge, shows that Offi cerGri ce deve l oped probabl e ca use t o ar re st M cBri de f orbat ter y. A nd o nce Gri ce had p ro b ab le c ause, the j ud ge add ed, the offi cer had no du t y t o wa t c h a s e c o nd v i de o o r o the rwis e continue i nvest i gat i ng.6 N o. 08

- 3556 II . A n alysis On appeal Sm i th vi gor ousl y ar gues that Office r Gri ce, no t hi m self, bo r e th e bur deno fpe r su as i o n o n the i ss ue ofpro babl e ca use, and he f aul ts the m agis tr ate j ud ge f or not hol ding Gri ce to hi s pu rpor ted burden . A ccor ding to M cBri de, it w as up to Gri ce t o subm i t e vi dence est abl i shi ng the exi ste nce o fpro babl e c au se, wh er eas , M cBri de i nsi sts , the m agi str ate j ud ge th ou gh t itwas h is b u rd en to s h o w t h e a b se n c e o f p ro b ab le c au se . In supp or t, M cBri de ci tes to Jac ob s v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 21 5 F
. 3d 75 8, 770-71 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) , i n whi chwe he l d tha t, o n the f ac t s a l l e g e d in the c o mpl a i nti n tha tc a s e , the pol i ceoffi cerdefendants co uld notr el y on q ual i fi ed i m m unity as a g ro und f ordi sm issal o n a m oti on under F edera l Rule ofC ivi l Pro cedure 12(b) ( 6)
. The pl ai nti ff s had al l eg ed th atthe offi ce r s s ea r ch ed the i r a par tmentwi th o ut a va l i d w ar ra nt, and the ir com pla i nt i ncl ud ed no f actual a l l e g a t i o n s s u g g e s t i n gth e e x i s t e n c e o fe x i g e n tc i r c u mst an c es orano therexce pti on t o the warr ant r equi re m ent. Id. at76 8, 77 0. I n concl ud i ng tha t th e c om p l ai nt was suffi ci ent t o sta te a cl ai m under § 1983 , the Jacobs panel o bs er ve d tha t, i n thi s co nt ex t, “ th e bur deni s o n the D efe n d an t O ffice rs to sh ow th at th ey h ad p ro b ab le cause. ” Id. at77 0. M cBri de off er s no r eas on wh y Jacobs w ou ld applyto h is c as e, a n d h e is alt og et h er silen t a b ou t o th er d ec isi ons that rej ect hi s pos i ti on. I n thi s ci rcui t the al l oca ti on ofthe burden ofper suasi on i n a § 19 83 case cl ai m i ng a F o urth Am en dm en t vi o l at i o n i s cl ea r : a pl aint i ffc l ai m i ng th athe was a r r es te d wi th o utpr o babl e ca us e ca r r i es theN o. 08

- 3556 7 b u rd en of est ab lish in g th e ab se n c e of p ro b ab l e c a u se . See Wo o ds v. City of C hi. , 23 4 F
. 3d 979, 99 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) (“[I ]n ord er to surv iv e s um m ary j ud gm en t, [the p lai nt iff] ne ede d t o r ai se a g en ui ne i ss ue r eg ar di ngw he th er the o ff icers had prob able cau se to arrest him

. ”); S i mmon s v. Pryo r, 26 F. 3d 650, 65 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) (“ In o rd erto preva i l i n an unl aw ful ar re st action, the pla i nti ffm ust s h ow lac k of p ro b ab le c au se .”); s e e al s o Pars on s v. City of Pont i ac, 53 3 F
. 3d 492, 50 0 ( 6th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( “I n or der for a w r o n g fu l arr es t c laim to su c c ee d u n d er § 19 83 , a p lain tiff m u st p ro ve th at th e p olic e la c ke d p ro b ab le c au se .”), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct
. 2432 (2009); Be ckv. Ci ty of Upl and, 527 F.3d 85 3, 8 6 4 ( 9 th C ir. 20 08 ) (“O rd in ar ily . .

. the pl ai nti ffbea rs the burden ofpro vi ng the abs en c e o f probabl e ca use . . . i n a F ourth A m en d m en t f al se ar re st c a s e . P r o v i ngl a c ko fp r o b a b l e c a us e i s u s ua l l y e s s e nt i al t o de mon s t r a t i ng tha tthe p l a i nt i ff’ s F o ur th Am e nd

m en t rights w ere viol ated

. ”); V a nc e v. Wisel , 11 0 F
. 3d 1269 , 1278

- 79 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( hol ding that pla i nti ff i n § 1 983 sui t be ar s b urden ofpro vi ng tha t hi s o ra l and w ri tte n conse nts t o sea rch car w er e invol untary, ev en tho ugh p oli ce offi cers w ou ld bea r burd en i n crim inal case). Si m i l ar l y, M cBri d e i s a l so i ncor re ct in ar gui ng tha t Offi ce r Gr i ce b o r e th e bur deno f establ i sh i ngthe ex i st ence ofpr o babl e ca us e o n the s ta te
- l aw c l ai m s. The c a s e h e c ite s, M cKendreev. Ch risty, 1 7 2 N. E. 2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 1- 82 ( I l l

. A pp . 19 61) , was i nter preting an I l l i noi s s tatute a uthori zi ng pol i ce o ffi cer s t o m ake warra ntl ess ar re sts f or c r i me s c o mmi t t e d o u t s i de th e i r p r e s e n c e o n l y i f“ a c r i mi na l o ff en se ha s i n f ac t be en co m m i tt ed” an d the a r r es ting o ffi ce r “ ha s r ea so nabl e g r o und f o r b el i evi ng thatthe8 N o. 08

- 3556 perso n to be ar re ste d has co m m i tte d i t. ” I LL . R EV . S T AT ., c h

. 38 , ¶ 6 57 ( 1963 ) ( re peal ed 196 4)
. The cur re nt st atute om i ts the l anguag e l i m i ti ng warr antl ess ar re sts f orunobser ved cr i m es to si tuati ons w here a c ri m e “ has in f act be enc o m m i tt ed, ” an d i ns te ad r eq uires o nl y tha t th e ar r esting o ffi ce r ha ve pr o babl e ca us e to b el i ev e th atthe p er so n ta ke n int o c u st od y h as co m m i t te d an offe n se . See 725 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/1 07 -2; R o s s v . M a uro C hev rol et, 86 1 N
. E.2 d 313, 31 7 ( I l l. A pp . 20 06) ( “[ A ] pl ai nti ffhas to sh o w tha t sh e was unr ea son ab l y r es tr aine d wi th o ut p ro b ab le c au se .”); P eop le v. T yler, 471 N .E .2d 96 8 , 9 74 (Ill

. A pp . 19 84) ( “ ‘ Reaso nable gr ounds’ and ‘pr obab l e ca use’ ar e s y no ny mou s f o r p ur po s e s o fa r r e s t
. ” )
. No w u nder I l l i no i s l aw a pl aint i ffc l ai m i nga n i l l eg ala r r es t be ar s th e burden ofes tabl i shi ng the abs ence o fpro babl e ca use. Se e R o ss , 86 1 N
. E.2 d at 3 17 ( “To e stabl i sh .

. . a cl ai m o f fals e a rre st
. . . , a p lain tiffm u st sh ow th at sh e w as . . . ar re ste d by the defendants, and th at the def endants acte d without havi ng re aso nabl e gr ounds to bel i eve that an o ff ense w as com m i tte d by the pl ai nti ff

. ” ( i nter nal qu otation m arks an d citation om itted ))
. As f o r th e me r i t s o fth e d e f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm en t, M cBri de off er s no r eas on f orus t o doubt tha tthe u nd i s pu t e d f a c t s kno w n t o Offi c e r Gr i c e s up port ed the offi cer ’ s a sse ssm ent of p robabl e ca use; Gu yto n, afteral l, had to l d Gri ce that M cBri de had pu nched her i n the head, and she confi rm ed i n herdeposi ti on tha ts he t o l d Gri ce tha tMcB r i de h a d h i th e r . McB r i de i nsi sts , howev er , that furtheri nvest i gat i on would have led G r i c e t o re aliz e t h at p ro b ab le c au se w as ac tu allyN o. 08

- 3556 9 lac kin g b ec au se h e w as j u s tifie d in e vic tin g a n u n ru ly tr es p as se r. See 72 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5 / 7- 3. M cBr i de con tends thatthe m agis tr ate j ud ge i ncor re ctl y c oncl ud ed th at G rice w as no t obli gated to c o n s id er de fenses before m a k i nga n a r r e s t, a nd a s s e r t s tha ta ffi r mat i v e de f e nses ar e par t o fthe fac ts and ci rcum sta nces that an o ffi cer m ust consi der. I n additi on, he s ubm i ts that the j ud ge er re d by co ncl ud i ng tha t Gri ce di d not hav e to i nter vi ew the c ustom er s a t th e st ore o r vi ew al l ava i l abl e v i deos ofthe i nci dent bef or e m aki ng an ar re st. Once aga i n M cBri de si m plyfails to acknow l edge set tl ed l aw . Probabl e ca use i s a n abso l ute ba r to a § 19 83 c laim for fa lse arr es t. M ontano v. City of C hi. , 53 5 F .3d 558, 568 (7th Cir. 2008); Reynol ds v. Jam i s on , 48 8 F
. 3d 756, 76 5 (7 t h C ir. 20 07 ); C a se v. E sling er, 55 5 F
. 3d 1317, 13 26- 27 ( 11th Cir
. 20 09 ). A pol i ce o ffi cerhas probabl e ca use t o ar r es t i fa r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n wo u l d b e l i e v e , b a s e d o n the f a c t s a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s k n o wna tth e t i me , th a ta c r i me h ad be en co m m itt ed

. Be c k v. Ohio , 3 7 9 U
. S. 89, 91 (1964); Woods , 23 4 F
. 3d at 995- 96. N or m al l y, an o ffi cerm ay base a dete rm i nati on of probabl e ca use o n i nfo rm ati on fro m the p u ta tive vi cti m i fthe offi cerr eas onabl y b el i eve s that th e v ict im is te llin g t h e t ru th

. Beau ch am p v . Ci ty of N oble svil le, 320 F.3d 733 , 743 ( 7 t h C ir. 2003); Gr am e nos v. Jew el C o s. , 7 97 F.2d 43 2, 43 9 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); P eng v. M eiCh in Pen ghu , 335 F.3d 970 , 978-79 (9th C ir. 2003); Ahl e rs v. Schebi l , 18 8 F
. 3d 365, 37 0- 71 ( 6th Ci r. 19 99)
. A n offi cer sh o ul d pur su e r ea so nabl e avenu es o fi nv es ti g at i o n a nd m ayno t cl o se hi s ey es t o f ac ts tha t w ou ld cl ar i fy the sit u at ion , b u t on c e an offic er h as es ta b lish ed p r o b a b le c au se , he m ay en d h is in ve st iga tio n . H odg kins ex rel.10 N o. 08

- 3556 H o dg k i ns v. Pe t e rs on , 3 55 F
. 3d 10 48 , 1 06 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 004); BeVi e rv. H uc al , 80 6 F.2d 12 3, 12 7-2 8 (7th C ir. 19 86 ); R a m irez v. C ityof B uen a P a rk, 560 F.3d 101 2, 1023 -24 (9th C ir. 2009); Logs don v. Hai ns , 49 2 F.3d 33 4, 34 1 (6th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt
. den ied, 12 9 S
. Ct. 35 ( 2008 )
. I n I l l i noi s, a perso n com m i ts a ba tte ryi fhe in te n tio nal l y o r knowingl y without l ega l j usti fi cati on (1) causes bodil y harm to anotheror ( 2) m ake s physi calco ntact ofan insul ti ng o r provo ki ng nature. 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 12 -3. T h e ex ist en c e of a leg al jus tifica ti o n f o r a b at te r y i s no t ane l emento fthe o ff en se , b ut ra th er is a n a ffirm at ive d efe n se . Peop l ev. M e or, N o. 10 6122 , 20 09 W L 15 78 52 7, at *3 (Ill. Ju n e 4 , 200 9); Si m m ons , 26 F. 3d at 65 4 ( ci ti ng I l l i noi s l aw )
. A l though Offi cerGri ce “may no t i g no r e co nc l us i ve l y e st ab l i sh ed ev i den ce o fthe e xi s t e nc e o fa n a ffi r mat i v e de f e ns e, ” the F o ur th Am e nd

m ent i m poses n o d uty t o i nvest i gat e whether a defense is v alid

. H odgki ns , 355 F.3d at10 61 ; H um phrey v . St as zak, 14 8 F .3d 71 9, 72 4 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); Fr i dley v . Horr ighs , 291 F.3d 867, 874 (6th Cir. 2002). H er e, Guyton t ol d Offi cerGri ce that M cBri de had hither in th e h ea d , an d G r i c e s aw th at h er ey e w as sligh tly s wo l l e n a nd tha ts he h a d a sm a l l s c r a t c h o n he r f o r e he a d. These f acts certa in ly est abl i sh r eas on t o bel i eve that M cBri de had i ntenti onal l y m ade physi calcon tact with Guy to n a nd c au se d he r b o di ly ha r m o r made pr o vo k i ng c on ta c t. Se eSi m m ons , 26 F. 3d at 654 (noti n g t ha t victim ’s testim ony m ay estab li sh prob able c au se). A t sum m ary j udg m en t M cBri de su bmi tt ed no e vi den ce s ug g es ting that Gri ce had r eas on t o doubt Guyton’ s s tat em ents, an d G r i ce had m o r e tha n Guyt o n’ s s ta te m en ts to go on: he saw G u yto n’s i nj uri es and w atched the two o fthemN o. 08

- 3556 11 physi cal l y s tr uggl i ng o n the v ideo. A nd ther ef or e, b e c a us e Gr i c e h a d p r o b a b l e ca us e t o b e l i e v e tha tMcB r i de ha d c o m m i tt ed a batt er y, he ha d no o bl i g at i o n t o c o ntinue hi s i nv es ti g at i o n. Bu t even ifO ffi cerG ri ce had w atched the se cond vi deo, w e ca nnot s ee how thatex er ci se w oul d have chang ed h i s v i e w o fe v e n t s . Al th o u g h th e se c o n d v i d e o s h o ws m or e o f th e s tr u gg le lea d in g u p to G u yt o n ’ s fall, it d oe s n otd ep ict h ow th e s tr u gg le b eg an o r w h o d id w ha t. E ven i n conj un ction w ith th e fi rst video , there are g aps i n whi chM cB ride and Guy to n a r e o uto fs i g ht, a nd so the absence o ff oo tag e o fhi m st rik i ng herdoes not concl usi vel y e stabl i sh thatthe b low to Gu yto n’s head d id not ha ppene xa ct l y a s sh e des cr ibe d t o Gr i ce . The u n wa t c h e d v i d e o d o e s n o t s h o w Gu y t o n t o s s i n ga r o und c lot h es as M c B rid e a c c u se d h er o fd o in g, n or d oe s it sh o w Mc B r i d e p i c k i n g u p Gu y t o n i n a b e a r h u ga nd “gen tly” carrying h e r outs ide. Th e video d oes, how ever, sh ow the two ofthem ar gui ng and physi cal l y s tr ugg l i ng . At o ne po i ntM cBr i de do es h ave hi s ar m s ar o und G u yt on , b u t s h e w rig gle s o u t o f h is gr as p . Sh e fin ally l eave s when he tak es hol d ofherar m and pull s herto th e d oor ( kn ocking ove r clothes racks i n th e proc es s). Even i fM cBri de had the r i ght t o evi ct G u yt on , the vi deos do not concl usi vel y e stabl i sh the thatam ount o ff or ce he used was r eas onabl e, and ther ef ore G ri ce was not ob liga te d to co n sid er th e d ef e n s e. Se eGr am e nos , 79 7 F
. 2d at 439 ( “There i s no const i tuti onal or sta tu to ry requi re m ent that be f or e a n ar re st can be m ade the pol i ce m ust con d uc t a tri al. ” (ci tation om itted ))
.12 N o. 08

- 3556 I I I . Concl usio n Fo r the above r eas ons, we agr ee w i th the m agi str ate j ud ge th a t M cB ride fail ed to establish th e existen ce of a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri al f act concerni ng wh etherOffi cer Gr i ce ha d pr o babl e ca us e to a r r es t hi m f o r b at te r y . The m ag i st r at e j udg e pr o per l y g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n f avo r ofthe defe nd ants, and acco rdin gly, the j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

8- 11- 09