Opinion ID: 3003518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plaintiffs’ Arrests for Mob Action

Text: All plaintiffs were arrested for mob action. The critical question is whether the defendant officers had a reasonable belief that the plaintiffs, acting together, used either force or violence, thereby disturbing the public peace, or, alternatively, that the defendant officers could reasonably have believed that the plaintiffs were assemNo. 08-2658 21 bled to do an unlawful act. See 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a)(1) (defining mob action as “[t]he use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law”); 720 ILCS 5/25- 1(a)(2) (defining mob action as “[t]he assembly of 2 or more persons to do an unlawful act”). If the plaintiffs were not using force or violence and were not assembling to do an unlawful act, the officers did not have probable cause to arrest them for mob action. (Before the district court, the plaintiffs also argued that 720 ILCS 5/25-1(a)(2) is unconstitutional, relying on Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 938, 955 (N.D. Ill. 1968), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77 (1971). They have abandoned this argument on appeal, and so we do not consider it further.) Both the district court’s decision and the defendants’ argument supporting probable cause are premised on the factual assumption that, when police first arrived at La Rosa, the scene was chaotic and mob-like. But this proposition was disputed through first-hand accounts of those who were present, as we have recounted in detail above. In their depositions, the plaintiffs reported that when they arrived at La Rosa, the alleged assailants of Aranda’s wife and brother had already left. By the time the police arrived, the plaintiffs were calmly chatting with the restaurant owner and tending to the two injured parties. The videos from the police vehicles support this account. The only point at which “chaos” is apparent on the videos is when the officers surround the plaintiffs and appear to beat them. Indeed, one is struck by the officers’ apparent lack of urgency on at 22 No. 08-2658 least one of the videos, which shows them resting against cars, wandering around the scene, and pausing to talk and laugh with one another. In the face of the plaintiffs’ evidence (taken in the light most favorable to them), the district court’s conclusion that “it is undisputed that Officers Pantoja and Schroder [sic] arrived at a chaotic scene involving a fight between two groups of people with others running to intervene in the fray” is unsupportable. The evidence on which the district court relied—the officers’ testimony that the crowd appeared “intoxicated and agitated,” that the crowd did not immediately disperse when instructed to do so, and that at least some of the plaintiffs were visibly intoxicated—was all contested. Because there are disputes of material fact with respect to the elements of mob action, the district court erred in ruling that the defendants had probable cause as a matter of law to arrest the plaintiffs for that offense. 2. The Plaintiffs’ Arrests for Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer Antonio, Julio, Maria, and Maribel were arrested for resisting or obstructing a peace officer. 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (“A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer . . . of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.”). In order to support the district court’s ruling on this point, there must be no dispute that the facts showed that these plaintiffs knowingly resisted or obstructed the officers’ work. No. 08-2658 23 Once again, in light of our detailed recitation of the facts above, we can be relatively brief. The district court’s finding of probable cause for the resisting and obstructing arrests of Antonio, Julio, Maria, and Maribel was flawed. The court thought that probable cause existed because each of these plaintiffs approached the defendant officers while those officers were attempting to arrest another of the plaintiffs. But, without more evidence, there is nothing wrong in itself with approaching a police officer. The plaintiffs do not dispute that they approached the officers, but they say that they were just asking the officers what was going on. Later, they questioned why they were being arrested. As we noted in Payne v. Pauley, “It is well settled under Illinois law . . . that the resistance must be physical; mere argument will not suffice.” 337 F.3d 767, 776 (7th Cir. 2003). “In fact,” we continued, “the First Amendment protects even profanity-laden speech directed at police officers.” Id.; see also People v. Long, 738 N.E.2d 216, 222 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2000) (“Merely arguing with a police officer—even using abusive language—does not constitute resisting a peace officer.”); People v. Flannigan, 267 N.E.2d 739, 741-42 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 1971) (disrespect for the law, antagonism, or belligerence is insufficient to constitute resisting or obstructing a peace officer). Construing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the facts here are also disputed. The plaintiffs’ evidence, if believed by a trier of fact, shows that the plaintiffs neither tried to run, nor did anything more than insulate themselves from the officers’ actions. On this version of events there was no opportunity 24 No. 08-2658 for the plaintiffs to resist arrest or to impede any of the defendant officers’ duties. It was therefore error to grant summary judgment for the defendant officers on the assumption that the undisputed facts demonstrated probable cause for the arrests of Antonio, Julio, Maria, and Maribel for resisting or obstructing a peace officer. 3. The Plaintiffs’ Arrests for Battery Two plaintiffs, Antonio and Maria, were arrested for battery. Under 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a), it is a battery if a person “intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.” Antonio testified that he did not touch any of the defendant officers. Instead, he simply spoke to them. Similarly, Maria testified that she did not touch any officers. All she did was ask them to stop beating Antonio, her husband. These accounts are enough to create a genuine issue of material fact; they are flatly inconsistent with the defendant officers’ story. The parties sharply dispute not only whether Maria and Antonio intentionally or knowingly touched any of defendant officers, but also whether they touched any of the defendant officers at all.