July 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 31

that right was clearly established
at the time of the defendant's alleged
misconduct.
Accordingly, the court had to
determine whether Moore had alleged
sufficient facts indicative of
a violation of his Fourth Amendment
rights at the time of his arrest
by Officer Gibson.
Terry Stop
As described by the court, a seizure
within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment occurs when
a police officer briefly stops and
detains an individual based upon
a reasonable suspicion that an
individual is engaged, or about
to be engaged, in criminal conduct.
Further, in the event of an
arrest, the court noted any such
seizure, referred to as a " Terry
Stop, " must be accompanied by
" probable cause. " As defined by
the court: " Probable cause exists
when the totality of circumstances
demonstrates that a prudent
person would believe that the arrestee
has committed or was committing
a crime " :
Whether probable cause exists
depends upon the reasonable
conclusion to be drawn from the
facts known to the arresting officer
at the time of the arrest. The
arresting officer himself need not
possess all of the available information;
probable cause is assessed
by the collective knowledge of the
relevant officers and available objective
facts.
Moreover,
the court acknowledged:
" An officer is entitled to
qualified immunity for a warrantless
arrest if there is at least arguable
probable cause " :
Arguable probable cause exists
if the arrest was based on an objectively
reasonable, even if mistaken,
belief that the arrest was based
in probable cause. Arguable probable
cause provides law enforcement
officers in a qualified immunity
analysis an even wider berth for
mistaken judgments than
the
probable cause standard affords a
reasonable person.
Further, in deciding whether to
arrest a subject, the court indicated
officers may make an arrest if a
credible eyewitness claims to have
seen the suspect commit the crime. In
addition, the court found an officer
" faced with conflicting information
that cannot be immediately resolved "
may still have " arguable probable
cause to arrest a suspect. "
According to the court, in considering
qualified immunity, it
was " not material " if the person
arrested is ultimately found not
guilty for the alleged crimes that
prompted the arrest. On the contrary,
the court acknowledged:
" an officer need only demonstrate
probable cause to carry out
an arrest for any offense arising
out of an incident. "
In determining the applicability
of qualified immunity for Officer
Gibson in this particular instance,
the federal district court would,
therefore, consider whether a reasonable
suspicion
and probable
cause existed to arrest Moore for
disorderly conduct and criminal
trespass.
Disorderly Conduct
The federal district court described
the
misdemeanor
of
disorderly
conduct under Arkansas criminal
law as follows:
The statute requires only that a
person engage in fighting or in violent,
threatening, or tumultuous beThe
trial judge acquitted Moore
of the charges in the criminal
citation.
court
In addition, under state law, the
found " a probable cause
determination or conviction
for
disorderly conduct " would exist
" where a person acts erratically or
loudly under the circumstances or
intends to disrupt a gathering. " On
the other hand, probable cause for
disorderly conduct would not exist
under applicable state law, " where
a person was making fleeting comments
or acting non-threateningly. "
Criminal Trespass
As cited by the federal district
court, Arkansas law also provided
that " a person commits criminal
trespass if he or she purposely
enters or remains unlawfully in or
upon the premises owned or leased
by another person. "
In this particular instance,
Moore claimed he had not committed
criminal trespass because
" the soccer complex was open to
the public. " While acknowledging
a person may remain on premises
open to the public, the court
found the privilege or license to do
so is lost when the individual " defies
a lawful order not to remain,
personally communicated to him
by the owner of such premises or
some other person authorized by
the owner. "
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | JULY 2 0 22 | Parks & Recreation
31
havior with the purpose of creating
a public inconvenience, annoyance,
or alarm or that a person engages
in such behavior in a way that recklessly
creates a risk of public inconvenience,
annoyance, or alarm.
July 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2022 - Parks & Recreation
