Fred Rahdar and Kobra Ghorbani, a married couple who operated a pub in Friendswood, Texas, sued the City of Friendswood and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged a campaign of harassment during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically focusing on two incidents. First, on August 3, 2020, officers arrested the couple for refusing a bar check, which the plaintiffs claimed was part of a harassing pattern of inspections. Second, on February 5, 2021, Rahdar was arrested after filming an officer in a public parking lot and blocking the officer's vehicle exit. The district court dismissed the false arrest claim for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment on the retaliatory arrest claim. The Fifth Circuit reviewed both rulings de novo.
The Fifth Circuit addressed two distinct legal issues. First, regarding the false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment, the court applied a Rule 12(b)(6) standard, requiring it to accept the complaint's allegations as true. The court found that the complaint alleged the officers arrested the plaintiffs for refusing a bar check. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff must allege that officers lacked probable cause to state a false arrest claim. Because the complaint did not allege a lack of probable cause, the court agreed with the district court that the claim was properly dismissed. Second, regarding the retaliatory arrest claim under the First Amendment, the court analyzed the probable cause requirement established in Nieves v. Bartlett. The court found that video evidence showed Rahdar intentionally blocked an officer's vehicle exit, providing probable cause for arrest under Texas Penal Code § 42.03. The plaintiffs attempted to invoke the Nieves exception, arguing that officers typically would not arrest in such circumstances. However, the court held that the plaintiffs forfeited these arguments on appeal because they failed to raise the specific evidence regarding another officer's testimony and the non-arrest of an employee in the district court. Consequently, the court affirmed that probable cause defeated the retaliatory arrest claim.
This decision limits the ability of individuals to pursue false arrest and retaliatory arrest claims when officers have probable cause for the arrest. It reinforces the procedural requirement that arguments regarding the Nieves exception must be raised at the district court level to be preserved for appeal. The ruling affirms that probable cause is a robust defense against First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, making it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed unless they can demonstrate that officers typically exercise discretion not to arrest in similar factual scenarios.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download