Opinion ID: 858124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of the Arrest

Text: Cameron also claims the County Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest her. Largely for the reasons explained above, Part I, supra, we disagree. When Cameron was arrested, Craig knew at least the following: (1) Buether claimed that Cameron used his credit card without authorization; (2) Overstock.com confirmed that Cameron used Buether’s credit card; (3) items purchased from Overstock.com were present in Cameron’s home; and (4) Cameron claimed that she had frequently used Buether’s credit card in the past, and thought she had permission to use Buether’s credit card to make the relevant purchases. At 8 It is important to note that by rejecting Cameron’s search claims, the panel in no way endorses Craig’s or Buether’s conduct here. Craig’s failure to include clearly relevant— albeit legally “unnecessary”— details in the search warrant affidavit demonstrates, at the very least, a significant lack of professional judgment. At worst, it is evidence of a purposeful attempt to aide Buether in his alleged vendetta against Cameron. See Part IV, infra. CAMERON V . CRAIG 15 bottom, Craig was faced with a classic “he said, she said” situation: Buether claimed Cameron didn’t have his permission to use his credit card, while Cameron claimed that she did. Under the totality of these circumstances, an objectively reasonable officer could have chosen to believe Buether. Consequently, we cannot conclude that Cameron was arrested without probable cause. The district court properly ruled in favor of the County Defendants on Cameron’s false arrest claims.