Civil Rights — qualified immunity

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — qualified immunity

Where a police officer, after issuing a traffic warning, continued to detain two motorists for thirty-four more minutes, during which time he conducted a pat-down of both men, a dog sniff of their car’s exterior, and a thorough search of their car’s interior, his motion for qualified immunity was properly denied.

“There was no reason to think that either plaintiff was armed or dangerous. We reach this conclusion for the same reasons that we determined that none of the five reasons Reichert proffers (individually or in combination) amounted to arguable probable cause. If there were a compelling need to pat down the plaintiffs, presumably Reichert would not have waited more than twenty-seven minutes to do so. Moreover, neither a prior conviction nor presence in a high-crime area is alone sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion that a suspect is armed. See Walden, 146 F.3d at 490; Lawshea, 461 F.3d at 860; United States v. Hairston, 439 F. Supp. 515, 518 (N.D. Ill. 1977). Since there was no reason to suspect that either plaintiff was armed, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity for Reichert’s search of their persons.”

Affirmed.

13-1734 Huff v. Reichert

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Flaum, J.