Opinion ID: 3167211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unlawful Stop and Arrest

Text: Williams argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he committed a traffic infraction such that Officer Brooks had probable cause to stop and arrest him. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the existence of probable cause renders traffic stops and resulting warrantless arrests permissible. Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1114 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting that probable cause is an absolute defense to false arrest claims in § 1983 actions). “When a police officer reasonably believes that a driver has committed a minor traffic offense, probable cause supports the stop.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. HernandezRivas, 513 F.3d 753, 759 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that when an officer observes a vehicle changing lanes without signaling, the officer has probable cause for a traffic stop). Addi10 No. 15-1763 tionally, it is “not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to arrest an individual for even a very minor traffic offense.” Jackson v. Parker, 627 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 323 (2001) (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid “a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine”). Officer Brooks testified that he initiated Williams’s traffic stop because he observed Williams violate Indiana Code § 9- 21-8-25 by failing to signal before changing lanes.2 Williams argues that his deposition testimony that his habit is to put his turn signal on as he enters a turn lane is enough to prove that he complied with the law. This argument is unconvincing. Williams did not testify that he signaled on the night in question. Rather, he said that he did not have a present memory of putting on his turn signal before changing lanes. He stated, “I wasn’t consciously thinking of [putting on my turn signal] that night” and also said, “I’m human. I’m fallible. I mean, I could have maybe forgot to turn my signal on.” Given the testimony of Officer Brooks and Williams, Williams’s statement about his normal habit is not enough for us to infer that he signaled this particular lane change. See Jones, 737 F.3d at 1114 (noting that plaintiff’s assertion that he usu- 2 Indiana Code § 9-21-8-25 provides: A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last two hundred (200) feet traveled by a vehicle before turning or changing lanes. A vehicle traveling in a speed zone of at least fifty (50) miles per hour shall give a signal continuously for not less than the last three hundred (300) feet traveled by the vehicle before turning or changing lanes. No. 15-1763 11 ally does not speed was not enough to rebut the officer’s statement that he saw plaintiff swerving and that his radar gun indicated that plaintiff was speeding, when plaintiff could not positively state that he was not speeding on the day in question and did not offer any evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely); Argyropoulos, 539 F.3d at 734 (noting that inferences based on speculation or conjecture are beyond the scope of our obligation to draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant). Thus, Officer Brooks’s testimony that he saw Williams change lanes without signaling establishes probable cause for the traffic stop, and Officer Brooks could lawfully arrest Williams for this traffic infraction. No reasonable jury could find that this was an unlawful stop and arrest. Williams’s next argument is that Officer Brooks did not have probable cause to arrest him for forcibly resisting law enforcement. This argument fails because once Officer Brooks had probable cause to conduct the traffic stop, Officer Brooks could arrest Williams without violating the Fourth Amendment, even if Williams was not resisting law enforcement. See Jackson, 627 F.3d at 638–39 (“[A]n arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as there is probable cause to believe that some criminal offense has been or is being committed, even if it is not the crime with which the officers initially charge the suspect.” (alteration and emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 401 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that since the officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for a parking offense in violation of an Illinois 12 No. 15-1763 statute, the officer could arrest plaintiff for driving under the influence without violating his Fourth Amendment rights).3 Finally, Williams briefly argues that Officer Kehl participated in and facilitated the unlawful arrest when he shoved and handcuffed Williams. He alleges that Officer Kehl knew or should have known that Officer Brooks did not have a sufficient basis to stop or arrest Williams. Since we have already concluded that a reasonable jury must find that Officer Brooks had probable cause to stop and arrest Williams, this argument fails. Officer Brooks and Officer Kehl are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the unlawful stop and arrest claim. 3 We briefly note that a reasonable jury must also find that Officer Brooks had probable cause to arrest Williams for resisting law enforcement in violation of Indiana Code § 35-44.1-3-1. Under this statute, “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties … commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor … .” Williams argues that he did not forcibly resist but rather “leaned away and twisted in pain.” However, the video blatantly contradicts these allegations. The video shows that Williams was uncooperative and ignored many commands from Officer Brooks. Williams forcefully pushed against Officer Brooks, using his arms to push away from the car and backing his body into Officer Brooks, preventing Officer Brooks from conducting a pat down search and conducting a field sobriety test. These actions are enough to establish probable cause for arrest. See Lopez v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1090, 1093–94 (Ind. App. 2010) (holding that defendant forcibly resisted arrest when he refused to stand to be cuffed, pulled away from officer’s attempts to pull him up from the couch, and physically prevented officers from pulling his arms from under him as he lay on the ground). No. 15-1763 13