Page:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018).pdf/23

7 effectively. Police officers almost always exchange words with suspects before arresting them. And often a suspect’s “speech provides evidence of a crime or suggests a potential threat.” Reichle, 566 U.S., at 668. If probable cause were not required, the threat of liability might deter an officer from arresting a suspected criminal who, for example, has a political bumper sticker on his car, cf. Kilpatrick v. United States, 432 Fed. Appx. 937 (CA11 2011); is participating in a politically tinged protest, Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 2014 WL 572352 (ND Cal., Feb. 11, 2014); or confronts and criticizes the officer during the arrest of a third party, Holland v. San Francisco, 2013 WL 968295 (ND Cal., Mar. 12, 2013). Allowing plaintiffs to bring a retaliatory-arrest claim in such circumstances, without pleading and proving a lack of probable cause, would permit plaintiffs to harass officers with the kind of suits that common-law courts deemed intolerable.

Because we should have answered the question presented and held that probable cause necessarily defeats First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claims, I respectfully dissent.