## 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

- 3873 W AYNE J A CK S ON, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J OE D ORT HA P ARKER, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C1958

— Suzan ne B. C onl on, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 13, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a n d P O S NERa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Pl ai nti ff

- A pp el l ant W ayne J acks on bro ught a Fourth Am endm ent c l ai m ag ai nst DefendantAppel l ee J o e Dor th a Pa r k erf o r f al se a r r es t pur su an t to 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983. H e cl ai m ed that Park er, a Ch i cago pol i ce o ffi cer, di d not hav e pr obab l e ca use t o ar re st hi m f ordri vi ng under the infl uence a nd var i ous o ther m i nortr affic vi ol ati ons. J acks on pre sente d evi dence that2 N o. 09

- 3873 Park erfra m ed hi m f orDU I b y f al si fyi ng the r esul ts of hi s fi el d s obr i ety tes ts as part of an ongo i ng schem e of ma k i n gp h o n y D UI ar r e s t s t o o b t a i n i n c r e a s e d o v e r t i me p ay . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t in favor of Pa rker, based i n p art on its find ing t h a t the re w as probabl e ca use t o ar re st J acks on f ordri vi ng a prohibited veh icl e on L ake Sh ore D rive in violation of a ci ty or dinance. The co urt c or re ctl y dete rm i ned that a fin d in g of p ro b ab le c au se b ar s Ja c ks on ’s fa lse arr es t c laim eve n i fPar kerdi d not hav e pr obab l e ca u se to ar re st J ac ks on f ora DU Iand eve n though J acks on was not ult i m ate l y c h ar ged with dri vi ng a prohibi ted ve hi cl e. R e c o g n i z i n gth e w e a k n e s s o fh i s f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m, Jackson re-structu res his ar gu m en t on ap p eal to assert th athe was unr ea so nabl y detained in v i o l at i o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd men tb e c a us e o f the a l l e g e d D UI fr a me- up . Jac ks on forfe ite d th is a rg u m en t b y n otra i s i n g it below and accord ingly, w e affirm the d istric t cou rt’s gran t of su m m ary j ud gm en t in f avor of Parker.

I. W hile on du ty, O fficer P a r ker observe d J acks on’s ve hi cl e, a Che vr o l etS i l ve r ado pi ckup t r uck, dri ving southbo und o n Lake Sho re Dri ve on M ay 10, 20 06, ar ound 3: 30 p. m . J acks on’ s v ehi cle had “B Truck” l i cense p lat es , a s o p p os ed to p as se n ge r-t yp e p lat es . Pa rk er te st ifi ed that he not i ced J acks on’s v ehi cl e was pro hibi ted f ro m Lake Shor e Dri ve und erChica go M u n icip alCode, I l l

. § 9

- 72

- 02 0, whi chmake s i t unl awfult o ope rate “ an y ve h icle u p on an y bou lev ar d

. . . w h en su c h ve h i c l e isN o. 09

- 3873 3 des i g ne d pr i m ar i l y f o r ca r r y i ng f r ei g ht o r o th erg o o ds an d m er chandise ” subj ect to an excepti on not at i ssue h ere. Ch i
. , I l l

. , M un. Code § 9- 72- 020(b)

. Par keral so tes ti fi ed th at h e o b se rv ed Jac ks on m ak e a n illega l lan e c h an ge in vi ol ati on of Chi cago M unici pal Code § 9- 12- 050, wh i ch m ak es it “u n law fu l for th e d riv er of an y v eh icle to fail o r r e fus e t o k e e p hi s ve hi c l e wi thin the de s i g na t e d b o un dar i es o f an y . . . l an e ex ce pt when l awfull y pa ssing anothe r vehi cl e. ” Id. § 9

- 12- 050(b)

. Par ker t es ti fi ed that he sa w J acks on a b ru p tl y m ove hi s v ehi cl e t w i ce fro m th e r i ght t o the l eft l ane o fLake Shor e Dri ve and then ba cka g ain. Pa r k ere xe cut ed a tr affi c st o p, a ppr o ac he d Ja ck so n, an d i nf o r m ed hi m tha t he w as p rohibi te d fr o m o per at i ng hi s t ruck on Lake S hor e Dri ve. W hen Par keras ked J acks on i fhe w as a w ar e that he w as not supp ose d to be on L ak e S hor e Dri ve, J acks on s ai d “yes

. ” Par kerfurther obs er ved thatJ acks on’ s w indshiel d had a cr ack, an al l ege d vi ol ati on o fChica go M unici pal C od e § 9- 40- 170, w hi ch m ake s i t “ unlawfulf orany perso n to dri ve . . . o n an y ro a d w a y a n y veh icl e . . . w hich i s in suc h u ns afe c on d itio n as to en d an ge r an y p er so n or p ro p er ty
. . . or is n ote q u i p p e d w ith

. . . eq u ip m en t in p ro p er co n d itio n . . . as re quir ed i n the tr affi c co de .

. . . ” Id. § 9- 40- 170. A fter al l ege dly obs er vi ng that J acks on had p in p oi nted pupi l s, b l o o dsh o t ey es , a fl us h c o m pl ex i o n, and sl urr ed speech, P arkeras ked J acks on i fhe ha d been d rin kin g a n d Jac ks on sa id “n o.” Jac ks on t e s t i fied th at in th e tw en ty-four hou r period b e fo re being p ulled over, he h a d n o tc o ns ume d a nya l c o ho l o r dr ug s . P a r k e r a d-4 N o. 09

- 3873

J ac ks on’ s gui l t y c har ge f or f ai l ur e t o n ot i fy the S ec re t ar y of 1 St at e ofanaddr es s c han ge was no tbr oughtto th e at t en t i on of the d istrict cou rt an d w as d isreg ard ed b y Pa rk er o n a p p eal. m i ni ste re d seve ra l r oadsi de fi el d s obr i etyte sts and re

port ed that J acks on f ai l ed each tes t. Par kerar re ste d J ac k so n a nd t o o khi m to the po l i ce s ta ti o n, wher e he adm i ni ste re d a br eathal yze r tes t. J acks on t est i fi ed that he blew i nt o the m a c h in e i n ac cord an ce w ith Pa rker’s i nstr ucti ons, but Park erm ani pu l ate d the t estto m ake i t ap p earthatJ acks on r efused to subm i t t o the t est
. Park er, o n the ot h erhand, cl ai m ed that J acks on att em pted to ci rcum vent the t est. J acks on was detai ned at th e p olic e s ta tio n u n t il his rele as e a t a p p ro x im at ely 3: 00 the ne xt m or ni ng. A s ind i cate d by Park er ’ s a rr estr epor t, J acks on was ar r es ted a nd c ha r g ed wi th( 1) dr i vingunde r the i nfl uenc e o f na r co ti cs ( 2 co unt s) ; ( 2) f ai l i ngt o no ti fy the Se cre tar y o fS ta te o f an add re ss change; ( 3) f ai l i ng to kee p i n l anes; and ( 4) dri vi ng an u n safe v ehi cl e. J acks on was no t ch ar g ed wi ththe pr o hibi ted v ehi cl e vi o l at i o n, but the ar re st re portdoes i nd ica te that J acks on was obs er ved “o perat i ng a prohibi ted m oto r vehi cl e o n Lake S hor e Dri ve. ” Pr i orto tr i ali n the Cir cui t Cour t o f Cook Coun ty, the pros ecuto r am ended the char ges to el i m i nate the DU Ico unts an d s u b sti tuted a charg e o f negli gent dr i ving . Af te r a b en cht r i al, the c o ur t f o und that J acks on vi ol ate d Chica go M unici pal Code § 9- 12- 050 bye ng ag i ngi n i m pr o pert r affi c l an e usage an d f ai l i ng to n ot ify the S ecr eta ryo fS tat e o fan a dd re ss change, 1 but f ound him notgui l ty on th e ot her charg es. J acks onN o. 09

- 3873 5

w a s g i v e n a di v e r s i o na r y s e nt e nc e ; h e wa s pl aced unde r sup e r v i s i o n a n d o r d e r e d t o p a y a $ 5 0 fi n e . He sa ti sf ac to r i l y c o m pl et ed hi s su per vi si o n. J a ck s o n b r o ughts ui ta g a i ns tP a r k e r u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 983, as ser ti ng a Four th A m endm ent v i ol ati on f or f al se ar re st. Par kerfi l ed a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a rguing, i n part, thatther e was pro babl e ca use to ar re st J acks on f orthe l ane c hange vi ol ati on a nd pro hibite d ve h icle vio lat ion an d t h at p ro b ab le c au se to arr es t is an abs ol ute ba r to a § 19 83 cl ai m f orf al se arre st. I n re sponse, J acks on a rgued that Park er di d not hav e p ro babl e ca use t o sto p orar re st hi m f orany tr affi c vi ol ati on. S peci fi cal l y, he pr ese nted evi dence thathe di d not m ake any abr up t l ane cha nges and neverchange d l anes i l l ega lly. H e furtherdeni ed that the v ehi cl e he w as dr i v i ngwa s a p r o hib i t e d v e hi c l e a nd i ns t e a d a sse rt ed tha tthe r e wa s a g e nu i ne i s s ue o fma t e r i a l f a c twh e ther he was dri vi ng a vehi cl e that v i ol ate d the o rdi nance. J acks on, h ow eve r, di d not pre sent supp or ti ng ev i dence orl ega l ar gum ent that pr obabl e ca use was l acking to arrest h im f or the p rohibited veh ic le vi olation. Rat he r, h e m er ely as se rt ed th at P ar ke r d id n ot p re se n t c re d ible ordi re ct e vi dence ofsuch a vi ol ati on. N ei therp arty ad d ressed the u ns afe vehicle ch arge at th e d istri ct cou rt or on ap p ea l. I n h i s br i e fi n o p p o s i t i o n t o P a r k e r ’ s mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t, J a c k s o n f u r th e r c l a r i fi e d th a th i s c o mpla i nt “m ake s cl earthathi s theor y of liabi l i ty i s f al se ar re st for D U I. ” In fac t, h e s ta te d , “th at is th e o n ly c r i mi n a l c h a r g e r e fer en c e d i n [ th e ] c o mpl a i n t
. ” He6 N o. 09

- 3873

as se rt ed th at h e p as se d h is field so b rie ty te st, th at h is speech was notsl urr ed duri n g h i s e ncounterwith Park er, thathi s bal ance was per fect, and that he di d not swa y, s ta g g er, o r s wag g er . He s ta ted th at th er e was no evi dence ofany i m pai rm ent t o supp or t a n ar re st f or DU Iand in st ea d, Park erf al si fi ed the re sul ts and w ro ngfu l l y a r r e s t e d h i m f o r D UIa s p a r t o fa n o n g o i n gs c h e me to inc re as e h is ov er tim e p ay . Jac ks on p re s e n t e d ev idence showingthatPar keri ntenti onal l y r epor ted f al se i nfo rm ati on i n DU Ir epor ts i n f or ty- ni ne othercas es b y m isr ep re se n tin g t h at arr es te es failed th eir field so br i e t y t e s t s . J a c k s o n a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e th a tt he Pub l i c Cor r upt i o n a nd F i na nc ial Cr i m es Uni t o fthe Sp ecial Prosecu tions B ure au o f t h e C ook C ou nt y State’s A tto rney ’ s Offi ce was i nvol ved i n an o ngoi ng i nvest i gation of Pa rker conc ernin g his con d uc t as a police officer. T he d is t rict court agree d w ith Pa rker that J acks on’s fals e a rre st cla im m u st fail be c au se P a r k e r h ad p ro b ab le cause to sto p and arrestJ acks on. The co urt deter m i ned th atJ ac k so n c o ul d no t co nt est p robabl e ca us e o n the lane c h a ng e viol ation u nd er the p rinciples of He ckv. H um ph rey, 51 2 U
. S. 477 (19 94) , because hi s s tat e co nvi cti on on tha t c h arge re ste d on Par ker ’ s t est i m ony that he o bser ved J acks on m ake an i l l ega l l ane cha nge. E ve n i fJ ackson’ s cl ai m was n ot b arre d by Hec k, the c o ur t f o und th atthe r e w as pr o babl e ca us e to a r r es t J ac k so n o n the prohibi ted ve hi cl e v i ol ati on. The c ou rtco ncl ud ed that a fi nd i ng o fpro babl e ca use f orthato ffense defe ate d J acks on’ s f al se ar re st cl ai m wh ether o r not ther e was probabl e ca use t o substa nti ate t h e DU Ichar ges . J acks on a pp e a l e d.N o. 09

- 3873 7 II. J a c k s o n r e - s t r u c t u r e d h i s a r g um en to n a p p e a l

. He no w as se r ts tha t Pa r k erv i o l at ed hi s F o ur thAm en dm en t ri ghts by unreas onabl y deta i ning hi m afterthe i ni ti al t r a ffi c s t o p s o h e c o u l d f r a me J a c k s o n f o r D UI
. He c on te n d s t h at p ro b ab le c au se to arr es t fo r a m in or t r a ffic o ff en se do es no t i m m uni ze a n o ffi ce r wh o, a fte r making th e tr affi c st o p, fr ames the mot o r i st for a m o r e se r i o us cri m e, ther eby unreas onabl y pr ol onging the sei zure . Jackson point s out that un d er I ll inois l aw , a person arr es te d f o r a min o r t r affi c o ffen se “ sh al l ” po stb ai l i n a ny of three w ays, o n e of w hich i s “by d ep ositi ng . . . a curr e n t I l l i n o i s d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e . ” I l l

. S u p . C t
. R
. 5 2 6 ( a )
. On the o therhand, a p er so n ar re ste d fo r dri vi ng under the influ ence cannot deposi t hi s dri ver ’ s l i cense to o bt ain r el ea se , b utmustpo sta c as h b ai l

. I ll

. S up. Ct
. R. 52 6( c)
. Acco r di ng l y, J ac k so n a ss er ts tha t be ca us e o fthe f ra m e- up he c oul d n ot s i m plyl eave hi s dri ver ’ s l i cense wi th Pa r k e r a tthe s c e ne o fthe t r a ffi c s t o p, b uti ns t e a d, was pl ac ed unde r f o r m ala r r es t, t r an spo r te d t o the pol i ce s tat i on, and hel d i n custo dy f ornear l y tw el ve ho ur s b e f o r e b e i ngr e l e a s e d o n a c a s h b o nd

. Jac ks o n d o es n otco n te n d on ap p ea l th at p ro b ab le c au se for t h e s to p an d arr es t w as lac kin g a n d im p licit ly concede s that he w as l aw full y a rr est ed. J acks on r i g h t fu l l y c o n c e d e s th i s i s s u e ; we fi n d n o e r r o r i n the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s p ro b ab le c au se d et er m in at ion . To p re va il on a claim of fal se arrest, the p lai n t if f m us t show there w as no p ro babl e cause forhi s a rr est
. Willia m s v. R o drig uez , 509 F. 3d 392, 39 8 ( 7th C ir. 2007)
. I fpro babl e ca use t o8 N o. 09

- 3873

ar re st i s f ound to e xi st, i t “ is an absol ute defense to an y c l ai m unde r S ec ti o n 1 98 3 ag ains t po l i ce o fficers f orwrongful ar re st
. ” M us t af a v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 44 2 F. 3d 544, 54 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. “Pr obab l e c au se exi sts i f an offi cer re aso nabl y bel i eve s, i n l i ght of th e facts k n o wnt o [ h i m] a tth e t i me , th a ta s u s p e c th a d c o mm i tte d orwas com m i tti ng an offense. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v. R eed, 44 3 F
. 3d 600, 60 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) . A p ro b abl e ca use det er m i na ti o n “ r eli es o n the c o m m o n- se ns e j udg m en t o fth e o ffi c e r s b a s e d o n th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u msta nces. ” Id. Pa r k erha d pr o bab l e ca us e to s to p J ac k so n f o r dr i ving a pro hibi ted ve hi cl e o n Lake Shor e Dri ve . J acks on has not re futed that he was driv in g a pi ckup tr uck with “B Tru ck” li cen se p lates sou thbou nd on L ake Sh ore Dri ve w hen Par kerpu ll ed hi m o ver . W hi l e J acks on ar gued bel ow that hi s t ruck w as not a pro hibi ted v e hi c l e u nd e r the o r di na nc e , h e di d n o tp r e s e nts up port i ng ev id en c e o r l ega l ar gum ent forthi s defense. Fu rt h er , he d id n otp re s e n t le ga l arg u m en t t h at p ro b ab le c a u s e w a s la c kin g, n or d id h e ra ise th is iss u e o n ap p ea l. Based on the f acts kno w n to Par keratt he ti m e, i t was r ea so nabl e f o r hi m to b el i ev e th atJ ac k so n was v i o l at i ng Ch i cago M unici pal Code § 9- 72- 020(b) by dri vi ng a vehi c le desi gned “pri m ar i l y forcar ry i ng fre i ght o r othe r goo ds and m er chandise ” o n a b oul evar d. Because Par ker had pr obab l e cause to sto p J acks on f or the prohibi ted vehi cl e vi ol ati on, i t i s unnecessar y to deter m i ne w h ether th e p r i nc i pl es i n Hec kbarJ acks on fro m ar gui ng tha t p robab le c au se was l ac k i ngt o s to p hi m f o r the l an e ch an g e vi o l at i o n.N o. 09

- 3873 9 Even i fPar ker ’ s m oti vati on in st opping J acks on was to f ra m e hi m f orDU I, the const i tuti onalr eas onable

ness ofa tr affi c st op does not depend o n the subj ecti ve m ot iva tio n s o f th e in d ivid u al off ice r in v o l ve d

. Whren v . U nited Sta tes, 5 1 7 U. S
. 8 0 6 , 8 1 3 ( 1 9 9 6 )
. I n s t e a d, t he Four th A m endm ent’ s f ocus on r eas onabl eness di ctat es ano bj ec ti ve a na l y si s, unde r whi ch, “ th e f ac t th at th e offi cerdoes nothave the sta te ofm i n d w hi ch i s hypothecate d by the r eas ons w hi ch pro vi de the l ega l j usti fi cati o n f o r the o ffi ce r ’ s act i o n do es no t i nv al i dat e th e acti on t ake n as l ong as the c i rcum sta nces, vi ew ed obj ecti vely , j usti fy the act i on. ” Id. ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. As such, i t i s i rr el evant thatJ acks on was notchar ged with the pr oh ibite d vehi cl e v i ol ati on but i nstea d w i th o ther vi ol ati ons. “[ A ] n ar re st is re asonabl e under the F ourth A m endm ent s o l ong as th er e i s probabl e ca use t o b e l i e v e tha t s o mec r i m i na l o ffen se ha s be eno r i s be i ng co m m i tt e d , e v e n i fi ti s n o tth e c r i me wi th wh i c h t he o ffi c e r s i ni t i a l l y c ha r g e the s us pe c t
. ” F o x v . Ha yes , 60 0 F. 3d 819, 83 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 010) ( ci ti ng D even pec kv. A lfo rd, 54 3 U. S
. 1 46 , 1 53

- 56 ( 20 04 ) )
. I n D eve npeck, th e S u p r e me Cou r t r ej ec te d “ [t] he r ul e th atthe o ffen se e st ab l i sh i ng probabl e ca use m u st be ‘ cl ose l y r el ate d’ t o, and base d o n the s ame c o nduc t as , the o ffen se i den ti fi ed bythe a r r e s t in g off ice r at th e t im e o f arr es t.” 54 3 U .S. at 1 53 ; see al s o Hol mes v . Vi l l
. o

f Hof f man Es t at e , 5 11 F. 3d 673, 68 2 ( “ [ P ] r o b a b l e c a us e to b e l i e v e th a ta p e r s o n h a s c o mmi t t e d anycri m e wil l pre cl ud e a f al se ar re st cl ai m , ev en i fth e p e r s o n wa s a r r e s t e d o n a d d i t i o n a l o r d i ffe r en t ch arges for w hich there w as no prob able cau se.”).10 N o. 09

- 3873 I n Willia m s v. R o drig uez , the p lain tiffbr ought a f al se a r r e s t c l a i m, a r g uing tha t the r e wa s no pr o b a b l e ca use to ar re st hi m f orDU I. 509 F. 3d at 398- 99. The co urt disag re ed be c au se th er e w as p ro b ab le c au se to a r re st h im for vio l a t ion of ot h er tra ffic la w s. Id. The c o ur t ex pla i ned that the pr obab l e ca use a nal ysis “nee d not be l i m i ted so l el y t o w hetherpro babl e ca use e xi ste d to ar re st [ the pl ai nti ff ] f ordrivin g u nd erthe i nfl uence. ” Id. at 399. “Altho ugh [ the o ffi cer ] ar re sted [the pla i nti ff ] f or dri vi ng under the i nfl uence, an o ffi cer ’ s ‘ subj ecti ve re aso n f orm aki ng the ar re st need not be the cr i m i nal offe n se as to w h ich th e k n ow n fac ts p ro vid e p r o b a b le cause. ” Id. ( quoti ng D eve npeck, 5 43 U. S
. a t 15 3)
. “ [ T] he i s s u e i s w h e th e r a r e a s o n a b l e o ffi c e r, w i th the s a me in for m at ion kn ow n to [th e o ffice r] at t h e t im e, w ou ld ha v e h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t [ th e p l a i n t i ff ] f o r a ny off ense. ” Id. T he o ffi ceri n that case had prob abl e ca use to a r r es t th e pl aint i fff or p ar k i nghi s ve hi cl e al o ngthe ro ad w ay . Id. at 399 -400. B ecau se of the obj ective n atu re ofthe probabl e ca use a nal ysi s, i t di d not m att erthat the o ffi cer ’ s su b j ec tive r eas on f orm aki ng the ar re st w as dr i v i ng un de r the i nfl ue nc e r a the r tha n a v i o l a ti on o f th e p ar kin g off en se . Id. at 401 ; s eeals o Jaegly v. C ouch , 4 3 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ F o l l o wi ng D eve npeck, w e c on c lu d e h er e t h at a c laim for fa lse arr es t t u rn s o n ly on wh etherpro babl e ca use e xi st ed t o arr esta defe nd ant, and t h at i t i s no t r el evantwh etherpro babl e ca use e xi ste d wi thr espec t t o . . . a ny c ha r g e ac tu al l y i nv o k ed bythe arresting offi cer at th e tim e of arrest.”). I t i s no t a vi ol ati on o fthe Four th A m endm en t to ar re st an i ndi vi dual f o r ev en a ve r y m i no r tr affi c o ffen se . TheN o. 09

- 3873 11 Suprem e Cour t has hel d that “ [ i ] fan o ffi cer has p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e th a ta n i n d i v i d u a l h a s c o mm itt ed ev en a v e r y m in or cr im in al off en se in h is pr e s e nc e , h e ma y, wi tho utv i o l a t i ngthe Fo ur th Am e nd

m ent, ar re st the o ffender. ” Atwat e rv. Ci ty of La g o Vis ta , 532 U
. S. 31 8, 35 4 ( 2001 ) ( hol ding that pol i ce m ay m ake fu ll cu st od ial a rre s t s f or ev en fine -on ly offe n se s); see also Peop l ev. Tayl or, 902 N .E .2d 75 1, 75 9-6 0 (Ill. A p p . C t.) ( fi nd i ng tha t o ffi cer coul d l aw full y pl ace bi cycl i st u n d e r c u s t o d i a l a r r e s ta fte r ob s e r v i n gh i m v i o l a t i n gt wo m u n icip al or d in an c es reg ar d in g b icy c le u se ), appea l de ni e d, 9 10 N. E. 2d 11 31 ( 20 09 )
. The Co ur t i n A tw a ter note d that ind i vi du al i zed r evi ew m ay be a pp ro pri ate “whe n a de f e nd a nt mak e s a c o l o r a b l e a r g ume nt that an arres t
. . . w as con d uc ted i n an extra ord inary m an ne r, unu sual l y har m ful to [ hi s] pri vac y orev en physi cal i nter est s. ” A tw a ter, 53 2 U.S
. at35 2- 53 (in ternalquotations an d citation om itted ). In tha t case, the C ou rt de term i ne d tha t th e ar rest m ayha ve b ee n h um i l i at i ng, b ut it w as n o m or e ha rm fu l to th e p lain tiff’s p riv ac y or p h ys icali nter est s “ than the nor m alcusto dialar re st. ” Id. at 354. J acks on has si m i l ar l y no t m ade an a dequ ate s h o wi n g th a t h i s a r r e s t wa s mo r e h a r mfu l th a n t he n or m al c u st od ial a rre st
. See, e.g., C ho rt ek v. City of M il

w a uk ee, 356 F.3d 740 , 745-46 (7th C ir. 2004). Further, ev en tho ugh Illi n ois l aw m ay have al l owed Jac ks on to p os t b ail b y d ep os itin g h is c u r r e n t Illino is d riv er ’s lic en se h ad h e b e e n arr es te d for t h e t ra ffic o ff en se s an d no t f or D U I , s ta te l aw do es no t co nt r o l the re aso nabl eness i nquir y under the F ourth A m endm ent. Virgin ia v. M o o re, 5 53 U
. S
. 1 64, 1 76 ( 20 08 )
. I n M o o re,12 N o. 09

- 3873 offi cer s a rr est ed the pla i nti fff ora m i nortr affi c o ffense i nstea d ofi ssui ng hi m a sum m ons as re quired by V irg in ia la w . Id. at 167. The Court hel d that o ffi cer s do not vi ol ate the Four th A m endm ent when they m ak e an ar re st that i s base d o n probabl e cause but prohib ite d by st at e la w . Id. a t 175- 76. A st ate ’ s cho i ce o fa m or e r est ri cti ve sea rch- and-se i zure pol i cy does not re nd erl ess r est ric tiv e o n es u n re as on ab le, an d h en c e u n c on st itu tio n al. Id. at1 74
. T he Co ur tc o nc l ud e d tha t“ wa r r a nt l e s s a r r e sts f o r c r i m es c o m m i tt ed i n the pr es en ce o fa n a r resti ng offi cerar e r eas onabl e under the Const i tuti on, and that w hi l e St ate s ar e f re e to re gul ate such ar re sts h ow ever they desi re , st ate r est ri cti ons do not al terthe Four th A m endm ent’ s pro tect i ons. ” Id. at 176. R ecogn izi ng the p rinciples set fo r t h above, J acks on’s c ou n se l rea d ily ad m i t t e d a t o ra l arg u m en t t h at if th is case i s a nal yze d as a f al se ar re st case , Ja c ks on l ose s. A s a resul t, and a s note d above , J acks on re - str uctured h is ar gu m en t o n ap p ea l t o a ss er t a Fou rt h A m en d m en t c laim f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e d e t e n t i o n a r i s i n gfr o m t he f al s e D UI ar rest
. “ I n c i vi l l i ti g at i o n, i ss ue s no t pr es en te d t o the dist ri ct c ourtar e n or m al l y for fei ted o n appeal

. ” Rus s i an M edia Group, LL C v. Ca bleAm
. , Inc. , 59 8 F
. 3d 302, 30 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10)
. I fthe i nter est s o fj u sti ce r equi re , we m ay consi der the fo rfei ted argum ent, “but i t w i l lbe a ‘ ra re cas e in w hich f ail ure to prese nt a grou n d t o the d istri ct cou rt ha s ca us ed no o ne

— no t th e di st r i ctj udge, not us , no t th e appell ee

— any har m o fwh i ch the l aw ou gh t t o tak e note
. ’ ” Id. ( quo ti ng Am ca s tIndu s . Corp. v. D e t r ex Corp. , 2 F
. 3d 74 6, 749

- 50 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3) )
. As such, whi l e th e p lain err or d oc tr in e is oft en ap p lied in c rim i n a l ca se s, itN o. 09

- 3873 13 is ra re ly a p p lied in c ivil c as es . M ooreex. re l
. Es t at eof G rady v. Tuelja , 546 F.3d 42 3, 43 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). “P lain er r o r i s o nl y a va i l ab l e i n c i vi l c as es i f a par tyc ande m o nstr ate that : ( 1) exce pti onalci rcum stan c es exi st; ( 2) substa nt ial ri ghts ar e a ffecte d; and (3 ) a m i scar ri age o f j usti ce wil l o ccur i fpl ai n er ro r re vi ew i s no t a pp l i ed. ” Id. This i s no t s uch a r ar e c ivilcas e where excepti onal ci rcum sta nces exi st. J acks on di d n ot suffi ci entl y deve l op th e rec or d be low for re vie w of h is c laim of u n re as on ab le det en ti o n. F ur th er, the di st r i ctc o urt d id no t ha ve the opportunity t o add re ss J acks on’ s a rgum ent b ecause he c l ea r l y s etf o r thhi s o nl y c l ai m a s o ne f o r f al se arre st. “[ T]o r eve rs e the di str i ct c ourto n gr ounds not presente d to i t would underm i ne the es senti alfuncti on o f the di str i ct c ourt
. ” D o m k a v. P o rtag e C nty . Wis. , 52 3 F
. 3d 776, 78 4 ( 7th Cir. 2 00 8) ( quotati on o m i tte d). The appel l ee also d id n o t hav e the opp ortu nity to d evelop the record to re spond to thi s newlydevel oped theo ry , which was not setf or th i n J acks on’ s co m pla i nt o r hi s res ponse t o Park er ’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Final l y, J acks on ha s n o tma de a n a t t e mpt

— ei th er in his bri ef s o r at or al ar g um en t

— to show that the el em ents f orpl ai n er ro r re view have bee n sat i sfi ed. W e, ther ef or e, decl i ne to review f or plain error. Acco r di ng l y, f o r the re as o ns st at ed, the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

12- 3- 10