Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Sometime in September 2024, E’Mann Comichi’s nephew parked a Penske rental truck in a public parking lot near the Euless Dog Park before leaving town for a vacation. Comichi’s nephew was the only renter listed on the truck’s rental agreement, but Comichi had paid for the rental. On September 16, 2024, police “red tagged” the truck as illegally parked. The red tag ordered the vehicle moved by September 18. On September 22, Officers Ingrid Pethel and Brian Lord observed the truck still parked in the parking lot. Officer Pethel called a towing company to tow the vehicle.
On September 22, 2024, Comichi was walking his nephew’s dog near the dog park when he observed the Penske truck in the road, positioned behind the tow truck. Comichi ran to the truck and sat in the driver’s seat to prevent the tow truck operator from completing the tow. The operator informed Comichi that he would not release the truck unless Comichi paid a $350 “drop fee.”
Comichi called the police. Officer Wesley Hamilton arrived, and Comichi informed him that, because the Penske truck was not completely hooked up to the tow truck, he was entitled to reclaim it. Officer Hamilton told Comichi that, if the Penske truck was already hooked up to the tow truck, his act of entering the truck and preventing the tow was “obstructing.” The tow truck operator asked Comichi to roll the driver window up so that he could show him the red tag. Officer Hamilton then asked Comichi to step out of the truck so that he could see the language on the red tag, and Comichi began to raise his voice at Officer Hamilton and object that this was not a criminal matter. Officer Hamilton told Comichi, “Look, but now you’re obstructing the police. This [the red tag] is a police notice.” Comichi protested but ultimately complied, stepping out of the truck and reading the information on the red tag aloud.
Comichi fervently continued to assert that the truck had not been fully hooked up to the tow truck. Officer Hamilton told Comichi to “chill out,” and Comichi apologized. The tow truck operator then stated: “He’s right, I was not 100% connected to it, I had moved [the Penske truck] from its spot to connect to it, and he got me as I was backing up.” The operator again offered for Comichi to pay the drop fee to reclaim the truck, and Comichi refused. The operator explained that he had already picked up the truck from its original parked location and that the tow was already in progress. During this interaction, Officer Hamilton radioed for other officers to “come down here.” Officers Pethel and Lord arrived at the scene. Officer Pethel asked Comichi to move out of the roadway, and the group moved toward the side of the road.
Officer Pethel then informed Comichi that she would pat him down to check for weapons. She took his arm and moved him to the sidewalk, instructing him on how to stand for the pat-down, and he complied. Comichi alleges that the pat-down included touching his genitals and searching his pockets. Officers Lord and Hamilton watched Officer Pethel pat Comichi down.
After the pat-down, Officer Pethel asked Comichi for his name several times while Comichi explained his view of the incident to her. He declined to give his name but continued speaking with her. Officer Pethel offered Comichi the option to pay a drop fee to reclaim the truck, and he declined. After explaining that the truck had been abandoned pursuant to the relevant city ordinance, Officer Pethel informed Comichi that the truck would be towed. Comichi then acquiesced and began to walk away. Officer Pethel asked Comichi to give her his name before he left. Comichi again refused to identify himself. Officer Pethel replied: “I spoke with you, and you were detained, so you need to give me your name. And I’m not going to make it super difficult for you; I’m making it very easy for you. You are going to give me your name, or else you’re under arrest.”
Comichi stated that he would let the officers arrest him, and Officer Pethel responded: “No, how about you make it much simpler and just give me your name so that I don’t have to take you to jail for this.”Comichi said nothing and placed his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. Officer Pethel again asked for his name, but Comichi did not respond. She handcuffed Comichi and stated that he was under arrest. She escorted him to her vehicle, searched his person, and removed his personal belongings. After the squad cars departed, the tow truck operator towed the Penske truck pursuant to officer instruction.
Officer Pethel transported Comichi to the Hurst Jail, where he continued to refuse to identify himself. He was charged with Interference with Public Duties and Failure to Identify. Two days later, while Comichi was still in custody, Detective William Norwood reviewed the incident and requested to drop the Interference with Public Duties charge. Comichi spent forty-five hours at the jail before his release. The Failure to Identify charge was later dropped.
Comichi brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search, false arrest, and unlawful seizure of the truck. The district court granted qualified immunity on all matters. The 5th reversed as to the false arrest.
Analysis
A. Unlawful search
First, Comichi contends that Officer Pethel unlawfully searched him We disagree, concluding that Officer Pethel is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
Officer Pethel arrived at the scene after Officer Hamilton called for backup. As she approached, Comichi, Officer Hamilton, and the tow truck operator were engaged in an argument in the middle of the road. Comichi spoke in a raised voice. Officer Pethel instructed Comichi to move to the side of the road for his safety, gesturing for him to walk to the back of the Penske truck. Comichi disregarded her direction and walked in the opposite direction to stand between the tow truck and the Penske truck. Officer Pethel then told Comichi to step fully onto the sidewalk. Comichi followed her directions, but he protested and maintained a heated tone while moving back and forth.
In light of these facts, we cannot say Officer Pethel acted unreasonably in frisking Comichi’s outer clothing for weapons out of concern for officer safety. See Ducksworth. (collecting cases holding that nervous, erratic behavior created reasonable suspicion for an officer to conduct a pat-down).
B. False Arrest
Comichi asserts that Officer Pethel violated his Fourth Amendment rights when she arrested him without probable cause. We agree, concluding that Officer Pethel is not entitled to qualified immunity on Comichi’s false-arrest claim.
To determine whether Officer Pethel falsely arrested Comichi, we must consider whether she had probable cause for at least one of the charges against him: Failure to Identify and Interference with Public Duties. We consider each charge in turn, concluding that probable cause did not exist for either charge.
B1. Failure to Identify
In Texas, a person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name . . . to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.” Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(a). But we have long recognized that police cannot arrest an individual solely for refusing to provide identification. See Turner.
As shown in the bodycam footage, Officer Pethel arrived at the scene when Comichi was standing outside the truck in the street with Officer Hamilton and the tow truck operator. She directed Comichi to move to the side of the road, and he complied. Comichi described the situation to her, amidst which Officer Pethel repeatedly asked for his name, and he ignored her. Officer Pethel offered Comichi the option to pay a drop fee to reclaim the Penske truck, and he declined, prompting her to inform him that the truck would be towed.
Comichi turned to walk away. Officer Pethel then stated: “Let me get your name before you leave.” Drawing inferences Comichi’s favor, this statement suggests that Officer Pethel recognized that his detention had ended. Comichi responded that he would not give his name. Officer Pethel then escalated the encounter, saying: “I spoke with you, and you were detained, so you need to give me your name. And I’m not going to make it super difficult for you; I’m making it very easy for you. You are going to give me your name, or else you’re under arrest.” When Comichi still refused, saying he would not answer questions, she told him a third time: “How about you make it much simpler and just give me your name so that I don’t have to take you to jail for this.” When Comichi declined to respond, Officer Pethel handcuffed him and told him that he was under arrest.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Comichi, the bodycam footage shows that Officer Pethel arrested Comichi because he refused to identify himself—not because he was actively interfering with public duties. And based on the facts available to Officer Pethel at the scene, we are satisfied that no reasonable officer could have concluded that there was probable cause for a Failure to Identify charge.
B2. Interference with Public Duties
But because Comichi was also charged with Interference with Public Duties, we must ask whether probable cause existed for this charge, as well, in order to determine whether his arrest was valid.
Probable cause did not exist. A person commits Interference with Public Duties when he “with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with . . . a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.” Tex. Penal Code § 38.15(a)(1). “[A] person’s interference must consist of more than speech alone.” For example, we have found probable cause for Interference with Public Duties when a person fails to abide by officer instructions pertaining to physical conduct. But merely arguing with police officers about the propriety of their conduct does not constitute probable cause to arrest someone for interference.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Comichi, the bodycam footage shows that Comichi was not interfering with public duties at the time of his arrest. He did not fail to abide by officer instructions as to his physical conduct. He followed Officer Hamilton’s instruction to get out of the Penske truck prior to Officer Pethel’s arrival. And when Officer Pethel asked him to step out of the road, he did so readily. He then complied with Officer Pethel’s instructions regarding how to stand during the pat-down and continued standing with the officers as they dialogued about the situation. He only began to walk away when he learned the truck would be towed and believed that the encounter had ended. Comichi’s only noncompliance was verbal noncompliance: arguing about the propriety of the tow and the officers’ conduct and negotiating whether he should have to pay a drop fee. And the bodycam footage shows that Officer Pethel affirmatively engaged in mutual negotiation. Comichi’s verbal noncompliance was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for an Interference with Public Duties charge.
In sum: viewing the allegations in the complaint and the bodycam footage in the light most favorable to Comichi, Officer Pethel lacked probable cause to arrest Comichi for both Failure to Identify and Interference with Public Duties.
C. Seizure of truck
Next, Comichi asserts that Officers Pethel, Lord, and Hamilton unlawfully seized the Penske truck, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court did not err in dismissing this claim.
Comichi lacks Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the seizure of the Penske truck. Although he is not listed on the rental agreement, Comichi alleges that his nephew expressly authorized him to access and use the truck and that he paid for the rental. It is true, as Comichi asserts, that the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy. But the truck had been red-tagged as abandoned several days before Officer Pethel ordered it towed. Accordingly, even if Comichi had a possessory interest in the truck at the time of the incident, and even assuming that he therefore had some expectation of privacy with respect to the truck, he left the truck illegally parked long enough for it to be considered abandoned under municipal ordinance. Thus, he has not plausibly pleaded facts indicating that he took normal precautions to maintain an expectation of privacy in the truck. He therefore has not established Fourth Amendment standing to bring his unlawful-seizure claim, and the district
court did not err in dismissing it.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-10954.0.pdf