The plaintiff in a \u00a7 1983 case has the burden on clearly established law, and here the showing completely failed. \u201cAnemic.\u201d Bailey v. Beale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14449 (10th Cir. June 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[T]he individual officers did not violate clearly established law because at least one of the charges was supported by probable cause.\u201d Rasawehr v. Grey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14430 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs Carter acknowledges, the Fourth Amendment requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and, as the Supreme Court has reiterated, the totality-of-the-circumstances approach \u2018precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis.\u2019 See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002); \u2026 Under the totality of the circumstances, Carter was inconsistent with police officers and had inside knowledge about the crime. These facts taken together are sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. \u2026 Carter also does not point to any materially false facts or omissions that would negate the finding of probable cause. Without such facts or omissions, this Court cannot infer a reckless disregard for the truth. \u2026 Carter has not carried his burden to plead a constitutional violation. Thus, the district court properly held that Ludwick and Kious are entitled to qualified immunity on Carter’s false arrest claim.\u201d Carter v. Ludwick, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14436 (8th Cir. June 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The plaintiff in a \u00a7 1983 case has the burden on clearly established law, and here the showing completely failed. \u201cAnemic.\u201d Bailey v. Beale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14449 (10th Cir. June 12, 2025).* \u201c[T]he individual officers did not violate … Continue reading