# UnitedStates Cou rt of App eals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d February 13, 2017 * Deci ded February 13, 2017

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge DIANE S. S YKES , Circ uit Judge No. 16-1056 ERIC C. HUDSO N, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v . RONALD SA LIER, Defen dant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Central Dis tr i ct of Illi noi s. No. 13-cv-04091 Sar a Darro w, Judge

.

O R D E R EricHuds on appeals the grantof sum mary j udgment again st hi m in thi s ci vilrights su i t asserting that a polic e offi cer falsely arre sted hi m bas ed on a warrant for a di fferent in di vidu al. We affi rm. NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

We have ag reed t o deci de the case wi thout o ral ar gument becaus e the briefs and * recor d adequately pre sent the facts and l egal ar guments, and oral arg ument would n ot si gni fi cantly ai d the court. See F E D . R. A P P . P. 34( A )(2) (C).No. 16-1056 Page 2

Huds on was in the passen ger seat of a car driven by Johnny Hi cks wh en they were pulled over for a bro ken headli ght by I llinoi s Stat e Poli ce Offi cer Ronald S ali er. Salier ran Hi cks’s nam e thro ugh a computer i n hi s squ ad car and di scovered a warr ant for his arr est. Salier proceeded t o ar rest Hic ks and secure hi m in the back of the squad car. Hi cks told Salier that Hudson could dri ve t he car from the scene so that it would not hav e to be towed. Salier then asked Hudson f or hi s li cens e, i n acc or dance w i th standard oper atin g pro cedures, and ran hi s information through t he computer. The computer re turned a warr ant for an indi vidu al named Cli fton Hudson—Eri c’s brot her—who had fai led to pay a tic keton an uninsu red v ehi cle. Acc or ding to Salier, the computer dis played i denti fyi ng i nformation, su ch as Cli fton’s hei ght, weight, and eye colo r, as well as a b i rt hdate that mat ched Eri c’s and Eric ’s name as an ali as. Sali er arr ested Ericand radi oed for backup. Whi le Salier was puttin g Eric u nder arr est, Cli fton and two ot her fami ly members arrived at the scene. They prot ested that Er i c could not be the subject of t he warrant, but S ali er continued w i th the ar rest and placed Eri c into anot her squad car that had pull ed up. Sali er had Eric transported t o the lo cal jai l to be fi ngerpr inted to confi rm hi s i denti ty; t hat way, he ei ther could be book ed on a valid, appl i cable w arr ant or released. Ericwas taken to t he jail an d fingerpr i nted, but jail offi ci als di d not r eali ze that he was not t he subject o f the warrant. He was booke d and plac ed i n a cell u nti l a fami ly member bonded hi m out hours later

. EricHuds on sued Sali er under 42 U.S .C. § 1983 assertin g false arrest in vi olation of the Fo urth and Fo urteent h Amendmen ts. After di scovery had taken place, Salier moved for sum mary j udgment, arg uing that he acted r easonably as a matter o f law in arr esti ng Ericbased on the information contained in the warrant

. The di stric t court deter mined that Eric’s Four th Amendment rights w ere no t violated, and grant ed sum mary j udgment for S ali er. The court ag reed wi th Salier that hi s deci si on to arr est Ericwas reasonable b ased on hi s nam e and bi rt hdate matching the i nformation on the warrant . As for Eric’s arg ument that Salier would have di scovered the mi staken in formation had he li stened to t he prot ests of fami ly members present, the court ex plained that S ali er—k nowing that t here was a vali d warrant for Cli fton Huds on’s arr est—was n ot r equi red t o seek o ut evidenc e that po tentially would exo nerate Eric
. Eric, thro ugh couns el, appealed, and w e allowed couns el to withdraw after Eric ’s openi ng brief

was fi led. Ericchallen ges the dis tr i ct court’s conclus i on that S ali er acted reasonably when he mi stook hi m for Clifton, t he targ et o f the warrant. I n Eri c’s vi ew,No. 16-1056 Page 3

hi s arrest was unreasonable bec ause Sali er acknowledged t hat ther e was only a “50/50” chanc e he was arrestin g Clifton Hudson. Accordi ng to Eric, Salier should h ave conduc ted a mor e thor ough investigation into his i denti ty because Eri c’s dri ver ’s li cens e alert ed Salier that he may have been arresting someone other than the tar getof the warrant. When a poli ce offi cer mi stakes a person for someone he seeks to ar rest, t he arr est i s cons tituti onal i f the offi cer (1) has probable caus e to arr est the per son sought, and (2) reasonably beli eves thatthe arr estee is the person sought

. See Hi ll v. Calif ornia , 401 U.S. 797, 802 (1971); Catlin v. Ci ty of W heato n , 574 F.3d 361, 365 (7th Cir. 2009). Reasonable beli ef requi res a “suffi ci ent pro babi li ty, no t cert ai nty” t hat the ar restee is the i ntended tar get . See Hi ll , 401 U.S. at804; Tibbs v. City of Chicago , 469 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Ci r. 2006). As the di stric t court proper ly deter mined, Sali er’s deci si on to arr est Ericwas reasonable. The physi cal s i mi lariti es between Eri c and the warrant’s descri ption of Cli fton, coupled wi th Eric ’s i denti fi cati on matching the alias name and b i rt hdate from the warr ant, was enough to support t he reasonableness of Eric ’s arre st. See Hi ll , 401 U.S. at 803–04 (holdi ng that po li ce offi cers had probable cau se to ar rest indi vidu al who matched the su spect’s physi cal des cri ption, even though he pro duced i denti fi cati on showing that he was not t he sus pect); Catlin , 574 F.3d at 365– 66 (upholding reasonableness of anarr est of a person having a name di fferent fro m targ et’s but si mi lar age, height, wei ght, and arr estee was dri ving motor cycle si mi lar to that o f targ et’s in area where t arg et was expected to be found) ; Tibbs , 469 F.3d at 664 (upholdi ng reasonableness of anarr est of a person having same n ame, race, and sex as target but di fferent mi ddle ini tials and a 6-year age di fference). T o the ex tent Er i c maintai ns that Salier should h ave heeded t he prot ests of fami ly members and investigated hi s i denti ty further, S ali er was not r equi red t o do so because he had probable caus e to make the arr est. See Baker v. McCollon , 443 U.S. 137, 145–46 (1979); Atk ins v. C ity of Chicago , 631 F.3d 823, 828 (7th Cir. 2011). AFF IRM ED.