Background
Phillip Michael Eravi, a citizen journalist, was arrested by Lawrence Police Department officers while filming a police standoff with an armed shooter. Eravi sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations including retaliatory arrest, unlawful arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, and malicious prosecution. The district court granted the officers’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Eravi appealed, challenging only the dismissal of his retaliatory arrest claim.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo, accepting all well-pled factual allegations as true. The court determined that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment. Consequently, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time of the arrest.
What it means going forward
Law enforcement officers may arrest individuals filming them at crime scenes without facing liability under Section 1983 if the complaint does not plausibly allege a clearly established constitutional violation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download