The trial court believed that the law was clearly established that an officer may not arrest someone believed to hold certain religious beliefs if they would not arrest those of other religions in similar circumstances. The federal appeals court rejected a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the conviction because a judgment in the plaintiff's favor would imply that the conviction was invalid. A federal appeals court found that the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity on as federal false arrest claim and official immunity under New Hampshire law on a state malicious prosecution claim, as there was at least arguable probable cause for the arrest. The first officer placed the driver under arrest for resisting, but the charges were dismissed at court. Lexis A police officer saw a former firefighter soliciting money for charity with a firefighter's boot, and arrested him for theft relating to the misuse of a firefighter's identification card, as he was no longer a firefighter. Click here for access from the Circuit Court Clerk's website. All he did was make the remark, addressed to no one in particular, "Ah, this fucking bullshit" when observing several people carrying pro-Tea Party signs entering a federal park. Mazza, , U. Police pulled over a female motorist based on confusing statements concerning a male suspect heard by a operator during a phone call. Bivens actions are usually not favored in cases involving the military, national security, or intelligence gathering. In a lawsuit alleging false arrest and excessive force, a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant officers, relying on a dashcam video of the incident and rejecting the argument that there were material issues of fact relating to the plaintiff's claims. City of Salem, , U. A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and the negligence claims against a police officer and the District of Columbia, but held that allegations of the complaint sufficiently made out civil rights claims for false arrest and excessive force, as well as common law assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment against the same officer. A federal appeals court found that the ordinance violated the First Amendment on its face because it "substantially inhibits protected speech and is not amenable to clear and uniform enforcement. As to public meetings in which people assemble to consider "public questions," arrests of protestors are only allowable if a protestor engages in "threats, intimidations, or unlawful violence," not for non-violent political protest. A federal appeals court overturned a grant of qualified immunity to an officer who used a Taser in the dart mode against a man and threatened to also use it on his wife.