2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-10-2005 

# J ohnson v . Knorr P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2870

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J o hn s on v . Knorr " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1226. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1226NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT Case No: 04-2870 GAMAL J OHNSON, Appellant v. DAVID M . K

NO RR, Indivi du a lly

and a s a Paro le Offic er f or the Commonwealth of Penna .; WILLIAMJONE S, Indivi du a lly and a s a Paro le Offic er f or the Commonwealth of Penna .; COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA B OARD OF PROBATI ON

AND PARO LE; JOHNDO E, Indivi du a lly and a s a Police Offic er f

or the City

of Philadelphia; RI CHARD ROE, Individually and as a Police Offic er for the City

of Philadelphia; CI TY OF P H ILAD E LP H IA

_______________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 01- C A - 3418 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

_____________________ A r gued M ar ch 29, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , S M IT H , a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ay10, 2005) M ar t i n St ans hi ne ( A r gued) S t a n s h i n e & Si g a l , P . C. 1528 W al nutSt . , Sui t e 700 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C ouns el f orAppel l ant2

Pat r i ck J . M cM onagl e ( A r gued) C al vi n R . K oons Jo h n G . K n o rr, III O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al 21 S. 12t h St . , 3r d Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

_____________________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . G a m a l Jo h n so n c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n tin g o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to t he def endant s on hi s ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m al l egi ng thatPenns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and P arol e A gen tD avid K no rrarr est ed Joh nson w i t ho ut pr ob able cause. John son als o appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of l eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntt o add a m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , w hi ch cl ai m J ohns on fi r s tal l eged a tthe s um m aryj udgm ent st age o f t he p roceedings. John son assert s both act i on s as const i tuti on al viol at i on s, i nvoki ng 42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 1343. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. K nor r , as a n in d iv id u a l b u t n o t as a g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia l, i s th e o n lyre m a in in g d e f e n d a n t. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton t he f a lse a rre st c laim a n d w ill re v e rse th e d e n ial o f lea v e to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t to a ss e rt a m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m . W e w i l l r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t her proceed i ng s.3

F a cts T he fol l ow i ng fac t s , t aken i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o A ppel l antJ ohns on, w ho w as t he non- m ovi ng par t yon t he mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar e cul l ed fr om the s ubs t ant i al r ecor d befor e us . T he r el evantfac t s r el at ed t o t he deni al of J ohns on’ s m ot i on to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t a re u n c o n te s te d . O n Sept ember6, 2000, G amal J ohns on w as i n a w ai t i ng r oom w i t h abouta doze n ot herpr obat i oner s w hen anotherpr obat i onerappar ent l yhad an e pi l ept i c s ei zur e. U pon hear i ng t he ens ui ng comm ot i on, A gentK nor rexi t ed hi s offi ce a nd confr ont ed J ohns on, w h o w a s k n e e lin g o v e r t h e s tr ic k e n p ro b a tio n e r. J o h n s o n im p lo re d K n o rr to re n d e r a id . I n r es pons e, K nor rr epea t edl ycur s ed J ohns on and pus hed hi m outof the w ay . K nor rand J ohns on excha nged angryw or ds . W hen K norr , utt er i ng pr ofani t y , al s o or der ed J ohns on to leav e the w ait ing roo m are a a n d en ter on e o f th e o ff ices, Joh n so n rep li ed that K n o rr “bett ercal l s om e otherpeopl e outof the bac k ors om ethi ng. ” K norrt es t i fi ed thathe in te rp re te d J o h n s o n ’s re m a rk a s a th re a t. J o h n s o n e v e n tu a lly w a lk e d to w a rd th e in d ic a te d o f f ic e , w ith K n o rr c lo s e b e h in d . A s t heynear ed the off

i ce, K nor rpus hed J ohns on i nt o t he door , w hi ch s w ung open and s t ruck A gentJ ones . A ngr ycur s es w er e exc hanged a gai n, and J ohns on w as s ubdued, handcuf fed, and arr es t ed. K nor rcont act ed Phi l adel phi a pol i ce, and bas ed s ol el yon K n o rr’s v e rsio n o f

th e c o n f ro n tatio n , Jo h n so n w a s c h a rg e d w ith sim p le a ss a u lt, a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt, te rr o ri s tic th re a ts , a n d re c k le s s e n d a n g e rm e n t.4

Jo h n so n w as h eld f

o r tw o d ay s, an d the c h arg es w ere d ism issed at Jo h n so n ’s pr el i m i naryhear i ng s i x w eeks l at er . O n M ay29, 2001, J ohns on fi l ed s ui ti n t he C our tof C o m m o n P le a s a g a in s t K n o rr a lle g in g , in tera lia , unl aw ful s ear ch and s ei zur e, unl aw ful a rre st a n d im p riso n m e n t, an d d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s u n d e r th e 4 th , 5 th , an d 1 4 th amendm ent s of the fe der al C ons t i tut i on. T he def endant s r emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al c o u rt. A ft erdeny i ng K nor r ’ s m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entand forr econs i der at i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr eques t ed s uppl ement al br i efi ng on t he rul e of B a rn a v . C ity o f P e rth A m boy , 42 F. 3d 809 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , w hi ch t eac hes thati f pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es texi s t ed foranycr i m e, no m at t erhow m i nor , then no uncons t i tut i onal arr es tcl ai m can be m ai nt ai ned. I n hi s s uppl ement al br i ef, J ohns on ar gued forthe fi r s tt i m e thathe had s t at ed a cl ai m undera mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on t heory , gr ounded noti n t he pr obat i on offi ce confr ont at i on, buti n K nor r ’ s s t at ement s aboutthe i nci dentm ade t o Phi l adel phi a pol i ce w hi ch l ed t o J ohns on’ s pr os ecut i on. O n Jun e 11 , 20 04 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtrul ed thatbecau se K no rrhad probab l e cause t o arr estJohn son fo r t err ori st i c t hreat s, John son’s or i ginal l yassert ed co nst i tuti on al fal se arrest claim m u st fail . R eg ard ing the m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n claim , the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded: J ohns on’ s r eques tforl eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt

c o m e s m o r e t h a n a ye a ra n d a h a l f a f t e rth e c l o s e o f

d i s c o v e r y, a f ter D e f e n d a n ts’ M o tio n f

o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t w a s f u lly br i efe d, aft ert he part i es s ubm i t t ed thei rpr e- t r i al m emora nda,5 a n d ro u g h lyth re e w e e k s a f ter th e sc h e d u led trial o f th is l aw s ui ton M ar ch 17, 2004. M or eover , J ohns on’ s m al i ci ous p ro se c u tio n c laim is b a se d o n f a c ts o f w h ich h e w a s w e ll aw ar e bef

or e the cl os e of di s covery . T he C ourtfi nds that J ohns on’ s r eques tt o amend i s unt i m el yand thus the a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e u n d u ly p re ju d ic ia l to A g e n t K n o rr . A ccor di ngl y , J ohns on’ s r eques tforl eave t o amend i s deni ed. F als e A rrest Ou rr e v i e w o f

t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mm a r yj u d g me n ti s p l e n a r y , a n d we a p p ly th e s a m e te s t a s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . G oodm an v. Mead Johns on & Co. , 534 F. 2d 566, 573 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . V i ew i ng t he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng p arty , a g ran t of

su m m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate “ if th e p lead ing s, d ep o sit ion s, an sw ers t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he af fi davi t s , i f any , s how that t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c). W e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtthat A gen tK no rrhad probab l e cause to arres t J o h n s o n f

o rma k i n g t e r r o r i s t i c t h r e a t s . Un d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, o n e “ c o mmi t s th e c r i me o f ter ro ristic th re a ts if

th e p e rso n c o m m u n ica tes , eith e r d ire c tlyo r in d ire c tly , a th re a t to comm i tanycr i m e of vi ol ence w i t h i nt entt o t err or i ze a not her . ” 18 P A . C ON S . S TAT . § 2706( a) ( 1) ( 2004) . E ven as s um i ng, as w e mustatthi s s t age, thatA gentK norri ni t i at ed and es cal at ed the conf

r ont at i on, w e conc l ude thatJ ohns on’ s s t at ementt o K norrthathe

“ b e tter c a ll so m e o th e r p e o p le o u t o f th e b a c k o r so m e th in g ” p ro v id e d p ro b a b le c a u se to bel i eve thatJ ohns on had ut t er ed a t err or i s t i c thr eat . J ohns on es s ent i al l yconce des as6

m uch on page s 24- 25 of hi s br i ef. W e re co g n ize tha t th e terrorist ic th rea ts st atute “ w as n o t des ign ed to p en ali ze sp u rof- t he- m om entt hr eat s t hatar i s e outof ange ri n t he cour s e of a di s put e. ” C o m m o n w e a lth v. Tiz er , 684 A . 2d 597, 600 ( Pa. Super . 1996) ; 18 P A . C ON S . S TAT . A NN . § 2706 – O ffi ci al C om m ent1972. W hi l e thi s i nt erpr et at i on w oul d s eem t o i ns ul at e J ohns on fr om convi ct i on form aki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s , w e ca nnotdemand t hatpr obat i on offi cer s m ake s uch nuanc ed l egal det erm i nat i ons on the fl y . W e as k her e onl yw hetherA gentK nor rhad pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve J ohns on had comm i t t ed the cr i m e. Fur t her , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatcont extm at t er s . T he al t er cat i on betw een K nor rand J ohns on occurr ed i n a ful l pr obat i on offi ce w ai t i ng r oom and i n the dynami c s i tuat i on of another pr obat i oners uffe r i ng a s ei zur e i n t he s ame r oom . W hetherK norrm i s r ead oroverr eac t ed t o t he s i tuat i on, J ohns on admi t t ed thatr atherthan r etr eatas or der ed, he enga ged i n a fa ceto-fa ce co n fro n tat ion w ith the a g en t. T h is co n text w eigh s in f av o r of fin d ing that K n o rr had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tJ ohns on form aki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s . U pon t hi s bas i s , t he a rr e s t w a s ju s tif

ie d a n d J o h n s o n ’s u n c o n s titu tio n a l a rr e s t c la im m u s t f a il. B ar na , 42 F. 3d a t 8 1 9 . M al i ci ous Pros ecut i on O urr evi ew of the deni al of J ohns on’ s r eques tt o amend hi s compl ai nti s foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . B er

gerv. E dgew at erSt eel , 9 1 1 F .2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). A ft err ecount i ng t he mul t i pl e r ounds of br i efi ng and not i ng thatdi s coveryhad l ongI n l i ghtof the fa ctt hatournot i ce pl eadi ng r egi m e i s s uppl ement ed bya l i ber al 1 s ta n d a rd f

o r g ra n tin g p la in tif

f s le a v e to a m e n d , A da m s v . G o u ld , I nc. , 739 F. 2d 858, 864 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), w e n o te th at pa rag rap h 1 4 o f Jo h n so n ’s co m p lai n t al lege s tha t K n o rr r el at ed t o Phi l adel phi a pol i ce the fa l s e cl ai m thatJ ohns on had as s aul t ed the age nt , and th a t p a ra g ra p h 2 7 a lle g e s th a t K n o rr ’s a c tio n s w e re “ m a lic io u s .” 7 s i nce c l os ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed J ohns on’ s r eques tforl eave t o fi l e an a m ended compl ai ntt o as s er ta mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed that

“ Jo h n so n ’s r e q u e st to a m e n d is u n tim e lya n d th u s th e a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e u n d u ly p re ju d icia l to A g e n t K n o rr. A c c o rd in g ly , Jo h n so n ’s r e q u e st f o r le a v e to a m e n d is d e n ie d .” A l t hough w e s har e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s frus t r at i on w i t h J ohns on’ s l ong del ay befor e expl i ci t l ys eeki ng t o as s er ta mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m , w e bel i eve the D i s tr i ct 1 C our terr ed byequat i ng del ayon J ohns on’ s partw i t h pr ej udi ce t o A gentK norr . “D el ay a lo n e .. . is a n in su f

f icie n t g ro u n d to d e n ya n a m e n d m e n t, un les s th e d e lay un d u ly pr ej udi ces t he non- m ovi ng par t y . ” C o rn e ll & C o ., In c . v. O c c u p a tio n a l Sa

fety & He a lth R ev iew C o m m ’n , 5 7 3 F .2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). I n hi s br i ef t o t hi s C our t , K nor rdi d nots peci fyhow al l ow i ng the amendm ent w oul d be pr ej udi ci al t o hi m . A tor al ar gum ent , K nor r ’ s couns el as s ert ed thatal l ow i ng t he m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m t o go forw ar d w oul d be pr ej udi ci al beca us e addi t i onal di s coveryw oul d have t o be conduc t ed. W hen pr es s ed, how ever , couns el coul d nots t at e a s i ngl e fa ctnece s s aryt o a s um m aryj udgm enti nqui r yon t he cl ai m thatw as notal r eady par tof the ext ens i ve r ecor d. T hough the foc us of the i nqui r yon r emand w i l l s hi ftfr om8

t he al t er cat i on t o K nor r ’ s di s cus s i ons w i t h Phi l adel phi a pol i ce a nd pr os ecut or s , the exi s t i ng depos i t i on t es t i m onyof Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entD et ect i ve D ove and A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neyFr anci s s houl d be s uffi ci entforanypr e- t r i al m ot i ons conce r ni ng t he mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m . H ow ever , thi s ques t i on, as w el l as the defe ns es K nor raver s w oul d m ake pr ol ongi ng thi s cas e fut i l e, have notbeen br i efe d, and ar e i n anyeventbes taddr es s ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . C oncl usi on W e w il l aff

irm the g ran t of

su m m aryjud g m en t fo r K n o rr on Jo h n so n ’s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s r el at ed t o hi s fal s e arr es ttheory . W e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of J ohns on’ s r eques tt o amend hi s compl ai ntt o as s ertcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons undera mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on theory , and w i l l r emand t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtfor further proceedings.

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge , co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt. I j oi n t he maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on t o r ever s e and r emand on t he mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on iss u e . H o w e v e r, I p a rt c o m p a n yw ith th e m a jo rityo n its f

in d in g th a t K n o rr h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es tJ ohns on form aki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s . I w oul d r ever s e on thi s i s s ue as w el l , and rem and for further proceedings.9

T h e c rim e o f

m a k in g ter ro ristic th re a ts, u n d e r 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 2 7 0 6 (a )(1 ), is ex ac tl yw h at i t sou n d s li k e: i t r eq u ir es th rea tenin g v iolen ce w ith the in tent to ca u se terro r, a n d “ w a s n o t d e sig n e d to p e n a lize sp u r-o f -th e -m o m e n t th re a ts th a t ar ise o u t o f a n g e r in t he cour s e of a di s put e. ” C om m onw eal th v. Tiz er , 6 8 4 A .2 d 5 9 7 , 6 0 0 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1996) . E ven i f J ohns on’ s r atheropaque c om m entthatK nor r“bett ercal l s om e other p e o p le o u t o f

th e b a c k o r so m e th in g ” c o u ld b e c o n sid e re d a th re a t, i t ce rta in lyw a s n o t a ter ro ris tic t hr eat . N um er ous Penns y l vani a ca s es m ake i tcl earthatthr eat s m ade dur i ng “a heat ed verbal excha nge ora hea t ed conf r ont at i on, ” I

n r e J . H. , 797 A . 2d 260, 263 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 20 0 2 ), o r “ a n e x c h a n g e o f th re a ts m a d e d u rin g a h e a ted , p e rh a p s h y ste ric a l, ar gum ent , ” C om m onw eal th v. A nnes ki , 525 A . 2d 373, 376 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1987) , do not c o n s titu te th e o f

f e n s e o f m a k in g te rr o ri s tic th re a ts . See a l so C om m onw eal th v. R eynolds , 8 3 5 A .2 d 7 2 0 , 7 3 0 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 20 0 3 ); C om m onw eal th v. K i dd , 442 A . 2d 826 ( Pa. S u p e r. C t. 1 9 8 2 ). A lth o u g h th e m a

jo ritya c k n o w led g e s th is p re c e d e n t an d , in m yv iew , im p licitly c o n c e d e s th a t Jo h n so n d id n o t m a k e ter ro ristic th re a ts u n d e r th e P e n n sy lv a n ia ju risp ru d e n c e , ita ttem p ts to sh if t th e p layi n g g ro u n d b yn o tin g th a t th e iss u e h e re is o n ly one of pr obabl e ca us e, and that“w e ca nnotdemand t hatpr obat i on offi cer s m ake s uch nuance d l egal det erm i nat i ons on t he fl y . ” A nt e at6. B ut , gi ven the cl ar i t yof the l aw , no r eas onabl e par ol e off

i cers houl d have di ffi cul t yi n di s t i ngui s hi ng a hea t ed ar gum entfr om a c a lcu late d ter ro ristic th re a t. P ro b a b le c a u se re q u ire s f a c ts “ su f f icie n t in th e m se lv e s toT h e m ajorityco rrectl yn o tes th at, u n d er B ar na v. C i t y of P er th A m boy , 42 F. 3d 809 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ), p rob ab le ca u se to arrest a p erso n fo r any cr i m e i ns ul at es the arr es t i ng o f f ice r f ro m a ll u n c o n stitu tio n a l ar re st c laim s. A lth o u g h n o t ra ise d in th e D istric t C o u rt, a n d n o t b rie f

e d h e re , I n o te th e p ro b a b ili tyth a t K n o rr m ig h t h a v e h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es tJ ohns on for , among ot hert hi ngs , a vi ol at i on of hi s pr obat i on. See 37 Pa. C ode § 6 3 .4 (5 )(iii) (2 0 0 4 ) (re q u irin g p a ro lee s to “ [ r]e f ra in f ro m a ss a u lti v e b e h a v io r” ); Moor e v. P a . B d . o f P ro b a tio n & P a ro le , 505 A . 2d 1366, 1367 & n. 4 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1986) 10 w arr anta man of r eas onabl e ca ut i on i n t he bel i ef thatan off ens e has been ori s bei ng comm i t t ed. ” B r i negarv. U ni t ed Stat es , 338 U . S. 160, 175- 176 ( 1949) ( ci t at i ons and in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). I sim p lyc a n n o t se e h o w a re a so n a b le m a n c o u ld bel i eve thatJ ohns on had comm i t t ed the off ens e of t err or i s t i c thr eat s bas ed on hi s conduct i n t he par ol e off

i ce. N ot i ng t hat“cont extm at t er s , ” the maj or i t ydeci des thatthe cha r ged atm os pher e of t he p robat i on off

i ce “w ei gh s i n fav or of findi ng that K no rrhad probab l e cause to arres t J ohns on form aki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s . ” A nt e at6. I r es pect ful l ydi s agr ee. I n fac t , the Penns y l vani a ca s es s ugges tt hatt he oppos i t e i s the ca s e: the hea t ed conf r ont at i on and m utual excha nge of obs ceni t i es , i n t he cont extof the nee d t o ai d t he s t r i cken e pi l ept i c, sh o u ld h a v e m a d e it ev e n c lea re r to K n o rr th a t Jo h n so n ’s a lleg e d th re a t w a s n o t a v io la tio n o f

s e c tio n 2 7 0 6 . See, e. g. , I n r e J . H. , 797 A . 2d at263 ( “[A ] C our tm us tcons i der t he t ot al i t yof ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe thr eatw as a r es ul tof a he at ed verbal excha nge orconfr ont at i on. ”) . C ont extdoes i ndeed mat t er , butthe cont extof Jo h n so n an d K n o rr’ s d ispu te i s the b est reas o n fo r find ing that K n o rr l acke d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es tJ ohns on. 2( defi ni ng “as s aul t i ve beha vi or ” t o i ncl ude “a w i l l ful offe rw i t h for ce orvi ol ence t o do

hur tt o another ”) . I f thi s w as t he ca s e, then s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof K nor rw oul d be ap p rop ri ate u n d er B ar na , even though J ohns on w as notactual l yarr es t ed forpr obat i on vi ol at i on. 11 Fort he above r eas ons , I r es pect ful l ydi s s entfr om the maj or i t y ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng t h e g r a n to f

s u mma r yj u d g me n to n t h e f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m.12