ÃÛÖ­ÏãÌÒ

Legal Principle at Issue

Can a plaintiff pursue a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim even if probable cause existed for the arrest?

Action

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Fane Lozman, in an 8–1 decision written by Justice Kennedy. The Court held that Lozman could pursue a retaliatory arrest claim under the First Amendment even though probable cause existed for his arrest — but only under certain circumstances. The Court emphasized the unique facts of the case — including the existence of a city plan to retaliate against Lozman.

The decision was narrow and did not establish a broad rule for all retaliatory arrest cases. The ruling allows some room for plaintiffs to bring claims of retaliatory arrest if there's evidence of an official policy of retaliation, even when there's probable cause.

Facts/Syllabus

Fane Lozman was a vocal critic of the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. He often attended city council meetings and spoke out against corruption and other issues. The city allegedly did not appreciate his criticism, and tensions escalated over time. In June 2006 the Council held a closed-door session. Lozman alleged that the meeting’s transcript shows that councilmembers devised an official plan to intimidate him, and that many of his subsequent disputes with city officials and employees were part of the City’s retaliation plan. Five months after the closed-door meeting, the Council held a public meeting. During the public-comment session, Lozman began to speak about the arrests of officials from other jurisdictions. When he refused a councilmember’s request to stop making his remarks, the councilmember told the police officer in attendance to "carry him out." The officer handcuffed Lozman and ushered him out of the meeting. The City contends that he was arrested for violating the City Council’s rules of procedure by discussing issues unrelated to the City and then refusing to leave the podium. Lozman claims that his arrest was to retaliate for his lawsuit and his prior public criticisms of city officials. The State’s attorney determined that there was probable cause for his arrest, but decided to dismiss the charges. Lozman then filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging a number of incidents that, under his theory, showed the City’s purpose was to harass him, including by initiating an admiralty lawsuit against his floating home.

Importance of Case

Lozman’s legal battles became significant for defining limits of retaliatory arrest protections under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court answered a tough question: Can someone sue for retaliatory arrest even if there was probable cause for the arrest? The Court said yes, but only in narrow, specific cases where there’s clear evidence of an official retaliatory motive (like a policy or plan to punish protected speech). Lozman carved out an exception to the general rule that probable cause defeats retaliatory arrest claims. That means not all retaliation claims are dead just because the arrest was legally justified on paper.