Darnell Porter v. Perry Wyse, et al



Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1861 ___________ Darnell C. Porter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Perry Wyse, Investigator, 20th Judicial * Drug Crime Task Force, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * John Does, Conway County Probation/ * Parole Office and 20th Judicial Drug * Crime Task Force, * * Defendant, * * Brian Tatum, Investigator, 20th Judicial * Drug Crime Task Force, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 29, 2011 Filed: December 5, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ Appellate Case: 11-1861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2011 Entry ID: 3855687 PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Darnell Porter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Van Buren County police officers Perry Wyse and Brian Tatum. After careful de novo review, see Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2009), this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. The undisputed evidence shows that Wyse objectively had probable cause to arrest and detain Porter because Porter violated his parole conditions and his parole officer had instructed Wyse to take him into custody. See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause for warrantless arrest exists when police officer has reasonably trustworthy information that is sufficient to lead person of reasonable caution to believe suspect has committed or is committing crime); Medlock v. State, 89 S.W.3d 357, 366-67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) (parolee may be detained based on probable cause); see also United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 605, 607 (8th Cir. 2000) (police officer’s intent is irrelevant as long as there is sufficient objective evidence establishing probable cause for arrest). This court finds no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Porter’s request for additional discovery and rule on the summary judgment motion. See Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922 (8th Cir. 2010). This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 11-1861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2011 Entry ID: 3855687

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?