CA8: No evidence supported plaintiff’s arrest for DUI; no QI, no SJ

Plaintiff’s arrest without probable cause for driving under the influence survived summary judgment and the qualified immunity defense. Looking at the video, there is nothing that supports probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. The defendant officers and city used a “divide and conquer” approach to show there was a basis for arrest, contrary to Wesby. Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9095 (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025):

When assessing arguable probable cause, we are tasked with looking at “the whole picture.” Wesby, 583 U.S. at 60 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)); see also Nieters, 83 F.4th at 1107 (“[W]e may not disregard exculpatory evidence when considering the totality of the circumstances to determine if arguable probable cause existed.”). We avoid a “divide-and-conquer approach” to the facts and instead weigh “all of the surrounding circumstances” in assessing whether the officers’ belief that probable cause existed was reasonable. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 61–62 (citations omitted). Doing so here, and accepting the facts found by the district court, no officer could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial chance that Galanakis was under the influence of marijuana. Galanakis evinced almost no indicia of intoxication: no erratic driving; no odor of marijuana; no watery or bloodshot eyes; no staggering or physical instability; no refusal to take sobriety tests—rather, he twice asked to take a breathalyzer test. And he denied drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana that day or night. Moreover, Galanakis’s movements and behavior captured on Winters’s body camera footage suggest the opposite of intoxication. As the district court found, and as the footage shows, “Galanakis was moving confidently and directing subtle and not-so-subtle verbal jabs at Winters in a manner that would have been difficult for an impaired person.”

Defendants point to a sampling of Galanakis’s actions and statements during the entire course of the stop and argue that these support a reasonable inference that there was a “substantial chance” he was intoxicated. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 61 (quotation omitted). They cite the following undisputed facts: driving with high beams on; air fresheners in the car and gum chewing; Galanakis’s initial trouble finding his documentation; Galanakis’s failure to fully follow Winters’s instructions on two of the five field sobriety tests; four arguably inconsistent statements or misstatements; and the eight-to-ten-second pause before Galanakis answered that he could not remember when he last smoked marijuana.

Weighed against the totality of the circumstances—namely, video of a lengthy stop in which Galanakis registers almost no outward indication of intoxication—no objectively reasonable officer could conclude that these isolated actions amounted to arguable probable cause to arrest Galanakis. Galanakis’s traffic violation, the air fresheners, and his brief difficulty finding documentation while simultaneously answering Winters’s questions are minimally suggestive of impairment. Cf. State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 205–06 (Iowa 2004) (“[I]f failure to follow a perfect vector down the highway or keeping one’s eyes on the road [was] sufficient [reason] to suspect a person of driving while impaired, a substantial portion of the public would be subject each day to an invasion of [its] privacy.” (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973, 976 (10th Cir. 1993))); Saunders v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 226 N.W.2d 19, 21–22 (Iowa 1975) (in upholding license revocation, acknowledging driver’s “difficulty in producing his driver’s license” was one factor among several—including driver’s admission to having had three or four beers, “the smell of alcohol on his breath,” erratic driving, and unsteady walking—to support “reasonable grounds” he had driven under the influence). That Galanakis did not completely follow Winters’s instructions on two of the sobriety tests–taking too many steps, and not turning or counting out loud in the ways instructed–also lends weak support for the inference that Galanakis was intoxicated. …