Opinion ID: 1726817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Unreasonable Seizure Under Fourth Amendment

Text: We first address Williams' contention that he was unreasonably seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In his complaint, Williams alleges facts, and introduces evidence in support of these allegations, suggesting that he was arrested without probable cause due to false and misleading representations made by Baird. We conclude that with respect to this allegation, Williams, while having alleged the violation of a constitutional right, has failed to allege a legally cognizable claim for the violation of such a right. [43] That one cannot be arrested in the absence of probable cause is clearly established. [44] Williams in fact alleges he was arrested without probable cause. However, Williams also alleges he was arrested by law enforcement at Baird's direction. Williams does not contend that Baird arrested him; indeed, she would appear to have no authority to do so, [45] as generally only peace officers have the authority to effect an arrest. [46] Further, this court has noted on more than one occasion that probable cause . . . requires that the facts available to the officer would cause a reasonably cautious person to believe that the suspect has committed an offense. [47] Therefore, it is inconsequential whether Baird might have directed law enforcement to arrest Williams, as law enforcement would have been required to makes its own assessment of probable cause. There is no indication either from the record or state law that Baird was a member of law enforcement. Given this, we conclude as a matter of law that Williams has failed to state a legally cognizable claim for the violation of a constitutional right. As such, we conclude as to this contention that Baird is entitled to qualified immunity.