Spiller v. City of Texas City Police Department
130 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 1997)
Holding
Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense; officers who arrested a suspect based on eyewitness identification and surrounding circumstances had probable cause.
What This Case Is About
Spiller v. City of Texas City Police Department addresses the probable cause standard for arrests involving speech. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment violation because her arrest for disorderly conduct lacked probable cause.
The Facts
On July 15, 1994, Johnnie Faye Spiller, who is Black, pulled her car into a Chevron station in Texas City. She stopped at a pump being used by Officer Mark Spurgeon, who is white and was not in uniform. After Spurgeon finished pumping gas, he did not move his truck. Spiller politely asked him three times to move so she could get gas. Each time, Spurgeon acknowledged but ignored her request. Growing impatient, Spiller told Spurgeon to “move his damn truck” because “the pumps were not for socializing, they were for people to buy gas and go on about their business.” Spurgeon then told her she was under arrest for disorderly conduct, laughing as he showed her his police badge.
Spiller was arrested, her car was searched, and she was confined in a jail cell that smelled of urine. She was not prosecuted — the criminal complaint was dismissed.
What the Court Decided
The Fifth Circuit reversed in part, finding that Spiller’s complaint adequately alleged a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the events did not provide Spurgeon with probable cause to believe her remark was likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
The court noted that Spiller’s expression of frustration from inside her automobile was not part of a confrontational face-to-face exchange. Her reference to Spurgeon’s “damn truck” was not threatening, and Spurgeon — a police officer who might “reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than an average citizen” — initially responded by simply moving his truck as requested, belying any claim that her speech threatened a breach of the peace.
The court also found that Spiller’s pleadings did not provide Spurgeon with a qualified immunity defense.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Speech alone rarely provides probable cause for arrest. Telling an officer to move his “damn truck” does not constitute fighting words likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Officers cannot arrest you for expressing frustration, even with mild profanity.
Officers are held to a higher standard. Police officers are expected to exercise greater restraint than average citizens and are thus less likely to respond belligerently to strong language. This expectation weighs against probable cause for disorderly conduct arrests based on speech directed at officers.
The officer’s own reaction matters. When an officer initially responds calmly to your speech (as Spurgeon did by moving his truck), that response undermines any later claim that the speech threatened a breach of the peace.
Key Takeaway
An arrest for disorderly conduct based solely on a citizen’s expression of frustration with mild profanity — without any threatening or confrontational behavior — lacks probable cause and violates the Fourth Amendment. Officers cannot arrest people for speech that is merely impolite or critical.