Case:  Reyes v. Volanti, No. 22 CV 7339 (Jan 13, 2025 ND Ill.)

Facts: Long Island Audit (aka Sean Paul Reyes) sued three police officers, a city employee, and the City of Berwin, Il, for civil rights violations after he was arrested for filming inside City Hall.  On November 8, 2021, Reyes entered Berwyn City Hall with a GoPro strapped to his person, despite a sign reading “No cameras or recording devices.”  Reyes claimed he was in City Hall to make a FOIA request.  Reyes refused to stop filming. Several city employees told officers they were feeling uncomfortable, frightened, alarmed and disturbed” due to Reyes’ behavior.  Reyes was arrested by Volanti and charged with disorderly conduct.  The disorderly conduct charge was dropped,

Issues:   Reyes sued under 42 USC 1983 & 1988 alleging that (I) he was unlawfully arrested; and (II) the defendants conspired to deprive Reyes of his constitutional right; and (III) the defendants maliciously prosecuted him; and (IV) the City should indemnify the individual defendants for any damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment before trial.

Holding: Because the officers had probable cause to arrest Reyes, the officer's request for summary judgement is granted, and Reyes' case is dismissed.

Rationale: (I) & (II)  The court concludes that the officers had probable cause to arrest Reyes for disorderly conduct.  Since two city employees reported their concerns about Reyes’ behavior, they had reason to believe Reyes met the elements of disorderly conduct.  Moreover, the 7^(th) Circuit has concluded that ”videotaping other people, when accompanied by other suspicious circumstances, may constitute disorderly conduct.” Thus, when police “obtain information from an eyewitness establishing the elements of a crime, the information is almost always sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest.”  The police had PC to arrest Reyes.

Since probable cause was established, Reyes’ 4^(th) Amendment rights were not violated (count I), nor was there a conspiracy to deprive him of any such rights (count II), nor was he maliciously prosecuted (count III).  Since all three of the first claims were denied, claim IV regarding City indemnification becomes moot.

It is worth noting that Reyes only presented as evidence the edited YouTube version of his video.  He lost the original, unedited video that he filmed, and the judge was very critical of the probative value of Reyes’ video given that the original was unavailable. 

Finally, the court notes that even if we assume there wasn’t actual probable cause, the officer’s reasonably believed they had probable cause and thus would be protected by Qualified Immunity.

Comment:  Long Island Audit makes a big deal about “transparency”, but isn’t particularly transparent about his own losses.  I’m not aware that he has made a video or otherwise publicly discussed the outcome of this lawsuit.  His failure to preserve the full, unedited video he made of the audit was a major error of which other auditors should take note.  But even so, between the finding of probable cause for disorderly conduct and the finding of Qualified Immunity regardless of PC is telling as to how exceptionally difficult it is to win a civil rights violation lawsuit when arrested for disorderly conduct if such conduct causes others to be uncomfortable or afraid.