Reichle v. Howards

Reichle v. Howards
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 4, 2012
Full case name	Reichle v. Howards
Citations	566 U.S. 658 ( more )
Holding
Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit for allegedly violating a constitutional right if, at the time of an arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to the alleged rights violation.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor
Concurrence	Ginsburg (in judgment), joined by Breyer
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658(2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit for allegedly violating a constitutional right if, at the time of an arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to the alleged rights violation. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

Agents Reichle and Doyle were members of a United States Secret Service detail protecting Vice President Richard Cheney while he greeted members of the public at a shopping mall. Doyle overheard Howards, who was speaking into his cell phone, state that he "was going to ask [the Vice President] how many kids he's killed today." Doyle and other agents observed Howards enter the line to meet Cheney, tell Cheney that his "policies in Iraq are disgusting," and touch Cheney's shoulder as Cheney was leaving. After being briefed by Doyle, Reichle interviewed and then arrested Howards, who was charged with harassment. ^[1]

After that charge was dismissed, Howards brought an action against petitioners and others under Section 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents . Howards claimed that he was arrested and searched without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the arrest violated the First Amendment because it was made in retaliation for Howards' criticism of Cheney. The agents moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity, but the federal District Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the immunity ruling with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim because petitioners had probable cause to arrest Howards, but the court affirmed with regard to the First Amendment claim. In doing so, the court rejected Reichle's argument that, under Hartman v. Moore , probable cause to arrest defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. It concluded instead that Hartman applied only to retaliatory prosecution claims and thus did not upset prior Tenth Circuit precedent holding that a retaliatory arrest violates the First Amendment even if supported by probable cause. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 4, 2012. ^[1]

References

1. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012).
2. Denniston, Lyle (June 4, 2012). "Opinion recap: Narrow ruling on arrests". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved November 29, 2025.

External links

• Text of Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658(2012) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .