Duhe v. City of Little Rock, No. 17-2012 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action filed by plaintiffs and a nonprofit alleging that their arrests were without probable cause and violated the First Amendment, that the Arkansas disorderly conduct statute and a permit ordinance were unconstitutional, and that the County unconstitutionally detained plaintiffs. The court held that officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for violating the Arkansas disorderly conduct statute based on their personal observations, as well as information provided to them; plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas's disorderly conduct statute, but the statute was not void for vagueness nor overbroad; plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Little Rock's Permit Ordinance, on its face and as applied, because they were not arrested or charged under the ordinance and they were not prohibited from protesting even though they had lacked a permit; and any delay in plaintiffs' release from jail did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights and was not unreasonable.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging plaintiffs' arrests at a demonstration at a family planning clinic were without probable cause and violated their First Amendment rights, officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for violating the Arkansas disorderly conduct statute based on their personal observations, as well as information provided to them, which indicated that the plaintiffs' use of amplified sound was disrupting neighboring businesses and that they had obstructed traffic by blocking the clinic's driveway; plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas's disorderly conduct statute, but the statute is not void for vagueness or overbroad; plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Little Rock's Permit Ordinance, on its face and as applied, as they were not arrested or charged under the ordinance and they were not prohibited from protesting even though they had lacked a permit; delay in plaintiffs' release from jail did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights and was not unreasonable.
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.