February 2013 - Parks & Recreation - 25

L AW R E V I E W

take them off and put them back in
the bag. " Galbreath has also visited
the park since his arrest, three to four
times a week, but has not worn high
heels from fear of being arrested.
Galbreath asserts that, while he
would wear women's heels to the
park for therapeutic reasons, " doing so also permitted him to express
himself and his association with
the female gender and female identity. " However, he testified that he
" was using the high-heel shoes as a
form-form of physical therapy; and
I didn't, in my mind, think of that as
dressing like a woman. "

an officer may not arrest an individual without a warrant unless there
is probable cause. " The issue before
the court was, therefore, whether
Galbreath's behavior constituted
disorderly conduct under Municipal Code § 30-81, providing Parton
with sufficient probable cause to
make an arrest.
According to the court, " [p]robable cause exists where the facts and
circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which they
had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to
warrant a person of reasonable cau-

the arresting officer is entitled to
qualified immunity. Under this
framework, sometimes referred to
as " arguable probable cause, " even
law enforcement officials who reasonably but mistakenly conclude
that probable cause is present are
entitled to immunity.
As a result, to avoid having his
unlawful arrest claim dismissed on
a motion for summary judgment,
Galbreath would have to prove that
Parton " arrested him without probable cause " (that is, that he violated a
constitutional right). In addition, Galbreath would also have to demonstrate
that it would have been clear to
a reasonable officer that probaAs described by the federal court, the relevant
ble cause was lacking under the
circumstances (that is, that the
question in determining probable cause for an arrest
right was clearly established in
is " whether a substantial probability existed that the
the specific situation).
As noted by the court, Galsuspect committed the crime, requiring something
breath had " admitted to the
conduct " on which the court
more than a bare suspicion. "
would base its determination
of probable cause for the challenged arrest. Since Galbreath had
tion to have the belief that an offense
Probable Cause
been arrested for violating Oklahohas been or is being committed by the
Galbreath claimed Parton violated
ma City's disorderly conduct ordiperson to be arrested. " As noted by
his Fourth Amendment rights when
nance, the court would, therefore,
the court, the applicable legal stanhe arrested him for disorderly conconsider whether " the officer had
dard for determining probable cause
duct. In so doing, he contended the
probable cause to believe the statuto " requires more than a bare suspicion,
officer lacked probable cause to bery elements of public alarm and lack
but not proof beyond a reasonable
lieve he was violating Municipal Orof justification were present " under
doubt or even a preponderance [i.e.,
dinance 30-81. Galbreath argued that
" the totality of circumstances. "
more likely than not]. "
Parton unconstitutionally searched
In this particular instance, the fedFurther, the court found probable
his purse because the search was not
eral district court concluded " the
cause is not based on " the subjective
incident to a valid arrest.
facts and circumstances within Offibelief of an individual officer as to
In response, Parton claimed he was
cer Parton's knowledge and of which
whether there was probable cause for
entitled to qualified immunity on
he had reasonably trustworthy informaking an arrest. " Rather, the folplaintiff 's Fourth Amendment claims
mation were sufficient in themselves
lowing " objective standard " would
because he had probable cause to
to warrant a person of reasonable
be applied " in light of the specific
arrest Galbreath for disorderly concaution to have the belief that an
context of the case, not as a broad
duct. Further, Parton contended the
offense was being committed by the
general proposition " to determine
search of Galbreath's bag was proper
person arrested: "
whether sufficient probable cause exas either a limited protective search
Officer Parton was dispatched
isted for making an arrest:
for weapons or as a search incident
to the park to investigate a possible
If a reasonable officer could have
to arrest.
" morals violation. " He did not speak
believed that probable cause existAs noted by the federal district
with the person who placed the call
ed to make a warrantless arrest,
court, " it is clearly established that
24

Parks & Recreation

| FEBRUARY 2013 | WWW.NRPA.ORG
February 2013 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of February 2013 - Parks & Recreation
