• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

8th Circuit Court of Appeals: Cops Can Come Up w/Probable Cause AFTER the Arrest

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This is *exactly* the kind of behavior that poisons people's view of cops.

The title of the thread, which is somewhat inaccurate, comes from the video I watched describing the decision:


Here's the Appeals Court decision: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/22-1726/22-1726-2023-09-06.html

Mason Murphy v. Michael Schmitt, No. 22-1726 (8th Cir. 2023)

Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Grasz, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The police officer defendant had probable cause to stop plaintiff because he was walking on the wrong side of the road in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 300.405, and the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim; plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate a facial plausibility that police commonly see violations of the statute on similar roads and fail to make arrests, and thus he failed to fall within the exception set out in Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1727 (2019) to the general rule that probable cause defeats a retaliatory arrest claim. Judge Grasz, dissenting.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,973
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This case virtually has no value. Why? Because this case is an unpublished opinion. And unpublished opinions are decisions of a court that does not have sufficient precedential value. In other words, it has no binding authority. It applies only to the parties to the case.

The plaintiff cooked his own goose. “The parties agree Schmitt had probable cause to stop Murphy because Murphy was in violation of Missouri Revised Statute § 300.405.” Or you could say maybe the attorney for the plaintiff helped him cook his own goose.

Nowhere in the case does it say Murphy was charged with, convicted of or acquitted of walking on the wrong side of the roadway. The way it reads, Murphy was cut loose after after the cops got his name and he had no warrants.

As the old question goes, where is the beef?
 
Top