Opinion ID: 212271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agents Reichle and Doyle

Text: We agree with the district court that Mr. Howards has presented evidence sufficient to deprive Agents Reichle and Doyle of qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim at this stage. Although we reach this conclusion using a different analytical path than the district court, we may affirm on any grounds that are sufficiently supported by the record to allow for a conclusion as a matter of law. Nielander, 582 F.3d at 1166.
Mr. Howards argues, and Agents Reichle and Doyle do not contest, that Mr. Howards has satisfied the three elements of a First Amendment violation articulated in Nielander. Indeed, because their briefs on this issue focus solely on their probable cause argument which we discuss below, they do not address the Nielander factors at all. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Howards, we agree that he has satisfied the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim. First, his speech leading up to his arrest fell within the broad command of the First Amendment. [8] See, e.g., Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (recognizing that pointed expression[s] of anguish ... about the then-current domestic and foreign affairs of [the] government are protected by the First Amendment). Second, there can be no question that an arrest in retaliation for the exercise of protected speech constitutes an injury cognizable under our First Amendment jurisprudence. See Worrell, 219 F.3d at 1212 ([A]ny form of official retaliation for exercising one's freedom of speech, including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment, constitutes an infringement of that freedom. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Third, Mr. Howards has provided facts which suggest Agents Doyle and Reichle may have been substantially motivated by Mr. Howards' speech when he was arrested. Agent Doyle overheard Mr. Howards say into his cell phone, I'm going to ask him how many kids he's killed today. Aplt. App. at 532. He admitted the comment disturbed him. Id. He believed it was not healthy and was [not] quite right for someone to make such a comment to the Vice President. Id. Similarly, Agent Reichle was told by Agent Doyle about Mr. Howards' cell phone conversation. Id. at 371. Mr. Howards testified that when he told Agent Reichle about the way [he] felt about the war in Iraq, Mr. Reichle became visibly angry.... Id. at 500. Agent Reichle also admitted he considered this cell phone conversation when deciding to arrest Mr. Howards. Id. at 280. Agents Doyle and Reichle do not dispute the district court's determination that there is a question of fact on this element [of retaliation].... [because] there are conflicting accounts regarding which defendant knew what about plaintiff's cell phone conversation, when defendants knew it, and whether the conversation should be used to support probable cause. Order at 75.