CA5: Ptfs’ failure to show lack of PC doomed § 1983 case

There was no effort on the part of plaintiffs to show that their arrest was without probable cause. They submitted city recall petitions, but some of the names were friends and relatives of the persons being recalled. The recallees hired a private investigator to interview signers, and found that most of those interviewed said either that they didn’t sign it or that they were lied to about the purpose of the recall. Warrants for arrest were obtained for the recallers, but the county grand jury “no true billed” the charges. They didn’t attempt to undermine the probable cause in their § 1983 case, and there was thus qualified immunity. “On appeal, Plaintiffs do not present a coherent theory of liability, making it difficult to evaluate their claims.” Only the Fourth Amendment claim considered on appeal. Navarro v. City of San Juan, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15299 (5th Cir. August 27, 2015).

Consent to search a bag on a train was voluntary. “No one factor is dispositive, and this Court will not reach a conclusion about the nature of Cheun’s encounter with Agent Small by simply counting factors. See Thompson, 546 F.3d at 1226. Nonetheless, the totality of circumstances points to a consensual encounter. Agent Small asked Cheun to consent to a bag search three times during the encounter and received an affirmative response to each request. The record indicates Agent Small did nothing that would lead a reasonable person to believe he was not free to terminate the encounter.” Three times during the encounter, defendant was able to shut the door of his sleeper car. United States v. Maddaleni, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184649 (D.N.M. October 3, 2014).*