{"id":60830,"date":"2025-04-17T16:23:51","date_gmt":"2025-04-17T21:23:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60830"},"modified":"2025-04-19T10:41:19","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T15:41:19","slug":"ca8-no-evidence-supported-plaintiffs-arrest-for-dui-no-qi-no-sj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60830","title":{"rendered":"CA8: No evidence supported plaintiff’s arrest for DUI; no QI, no SJ"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Plaintiff\u2019s 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\u2019s arrest. The defendant officers and city used a \u201cdivide and conquer\u201d approach to show there was a basis for arrest, contrary to Wesby. Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa<\/a>, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9095 (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

When assessing arguable probable cause, we are tasked with looking at \u201cthe whole picture.\u201d 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 (\u201c[W]e may not disregard exculpatory evidence when considering the totality of the circumstances to determine if arguable probable cause existed.\u201d). We avoid a \u201cdivide-and-conquer approach\u201d to the facts and instead weigh \u201call of the surrounding circumstances\u201d in assessing whether the officers\u2019 belief that probable cause existed was reasonable. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 61\u201362 (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\u2014rather, he twice asked to take a breathalyzer test. And he denied drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana that day or night. Moreover, Galanakis\u2019s movements and behavior captured on Winters\u2019s body camera footage suggest the opposite of intoxication. As the district court found, and as the footage shows, \u201cGalanakis 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants point to a sampling of Galanakis\u2019s actions and statements during the entire course of the stop and argue that these support a reasonable inference that there was a \u201csubstantial chance\u201d 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\u2019s initial trouble finding his documentation; Galanakis\u2019s failure to fully follow Winters\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weighed against the totality of the circumstances\u2014namely, video of a lengthy stop in which Galanakis registers almost no outward indication of intoxication\u2014no objectively reasonable officer could conclude that these isolated actions amounted to arguable probable cause to arrest Galanakis. Galanakis\u2019s traffic violation, the air fresheners, and his brief difficulty finding documentation while simultaneously answering Winters\u2019s questions are minimally suggestive of impairment. Cf. State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 205\u201306 (Iowa 2004) (\u201c[I]f failure to follow a perfect vector down the highway or keeping one\u2019s 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.\u201d (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973, 976 (10th Cir. 1993))); Saunders v. Comm\u2019r of Pub. Safety, 226 N.W.2d 19, 21\u201322 (Iowa 1975) (in upholding license revocation, acknowledging driver\u2019s \u201cdifficulty in producing his driver\u2019s license\u201d was one factor among several\u2014including driver\u2019s admission to having had three or four beers, \u201cthe smell of alcohol on his breath,\u201d erratic driving, and unsteady walking\u2014to support \u201creasonable grounds\u201d he had driven under the influence). That Galanakis did not completely follow Winters\u2019s instructions on two of the sobriety tests\u2013taking too many steps, and not turning or counting out loud in the ways instructed\u2013also lends weak support for the inference that Galanakis was intoxicated. \u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff\u2019s 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\u2019s arrest. The defendant officers and city used a \u201cdivide … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arrest-or-entry-on-arrest"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=60830"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60830\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60858,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60830\/revisions\/60858"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=60830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=60830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=60830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}