Darnell Porter v. Perry Wyse, et al, No. 11-1861 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment where undisputed evidence showed officer had probable cause for plaintiff's arrest for parole violation.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1861 ___________ Darnell C. Porter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Perry Wyse, Investigator, 20th Judicial * Drug Crime Task Force, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * John Does, Conway County Probation/ * Parole Office and 20th Judicial Drug * Crime Task Force, * * Defendant, * * Brian Tatum, Investigator, 20th Judicial * Drug Crime Task Force, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 29, 2011 Filed: December 5, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Darnell Porter appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action against Van Buren County police officers Perry Wyse and Brian Tatum. After careful de novo review, see Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2009), this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. The undisputed evidence shows that Wyse objectively had probable cause to arrest and detain Porter because Porter violated his parole conditions and his parole officer had instructed Wyse to take him into custody. See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause for warrantless arrest exists when police officer has reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to lead person of reasonable caution to believe suspect has committed or is committing crime); Medlock v. State, 89 S.W.3d 357, 366-67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) (parolee may be detained based on probable cause); see also United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 605, 607 (8th Cir. 2000) (police officer s intent is irrelevant as long as there is sufficient objective evidence establishing probable cause for arrest). This court finds no abuse of discretion in the district court s decision to deny Porter s request for additional discovery and rule on the summary judgment motion. See Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2010). This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
