Opinion ID: 2973687
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Speech as Motivating Factor in the Arrest

Text: Secondly, Doyle claims that his exercise of speech was a motivating factor behind Officer McFadden’s decision to arrest him. In support of this claim, Doyle cites Greene v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889 (6th Cir. 2002), and McCurdy v. Montgomery County, 240 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001). In Greene, the plaintiff made a minimal showing that the arrest was the product of an improper motive. 310 F.3d at 896-97. The McCurdy court remanded the case, as the district court had failed to inquire about whether speech was a motivating factor in the arrest. 240 F.3d at 520. Here, Doyle presents almost no evidence supporting his claim that speech was a motivating factor in the arrest. He simply claims that “there clearly are fact issues as to whether the officer -4- Nos. 04-4253, 04-4367 Doyle v. McFadden would have made the arrest in the absence of constitutionally protected speech.” Due to this lack of evidence concerning Officer’s McFadden’s motivations for the arrest, he has failed create a genuine issue of material fact. See Cohn, 238 F.3d at 704.