Thomas E. Yoakum v. Brian Lynn

Eighth Circuit

Thomas E. Yoakum v. Brian Lynn

128 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 2005

Docket04-2171

StatusUnpublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 561 (Thomas E. Yoakum v. Brian Lynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas E. Yoakum v. Brian Lynn, 128 F. App'x 561 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Yoakum appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights suit against a Si-loam Springs police officer. After careful de novo review, we affirm. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

We agree with the district court that the undisputed facts establish defendant did not violate Yoakum’s constitutional rights, because the officer had probable cause to arrest Yoakum for obstructing governmental operations during an incident in the police station lobby. See Ark Code. Ann. § 5-54-102(a)(l) (Michie Supp.2003) (elements of obstructing governmental operations); Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 309 (8th Cir.1987) (probable cause to arrest suspect exists where reasonable officer would believe, based on available facts and circumstances, that suspect was committing or had committed offense); Kelley v. Arkansas, 75 Ark.App. 144, 55 S.W.3d 309, 311-12 (2001) (defendant obstructed governmental operations under Arkansas law where officer was conducting field sobriety test of motorist in defendant’s driveway, and defendant exited his house, yelled profanities, and refused to take field sobriety test, after which motorist stopped cooperating with officer).

Although some facts are in dispute, they are not material. We also reject, as unsupported and contrary to the district court’s opinion, Yoakum’s arguments that the court made credibility findings, and that the court made its probable-cause determination based on the conduct of Yoa-kum’s family members. We do not address arguments Yoakum raises for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Yoakum appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights suit against a Si-loam Springs police officer. After careful de novo review, we affirm. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

We agree with the district court that the undisputed facts establish defendant did not violate Yoakum’s constitutional rights, because the officer had probable cause to arrest Yoakum for obstructing governmental operations during an incident in the police station lobby. See Ark Code. Ann. § 5-54-102(a)(l) (Michie Supp.2003) (elements of obstructing governmental operations); Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 309 (8th Cir.1987) (probable cause to arrest suspect exists where reasonable officer would believe, based on available facts and circumstances, that suspect was committing or had committed offense); Kelley v. Arkansas, 75 Ark.App. 144, 55 S.W.3d 309, 311-12 (2001) (defendant obstructed governmental operations under Arkansas law where officer was conducting field sobriety test of motorist in defendant’s driveway, and defendant exited his house, yelled profanities, and refused to take field sobriety test, after which motorist stopped cooperating with officer).

Although some facts are in dispute, they are not material. We also reject, as unsupported and contrary to the district court’s opinion, Yoakum’s arguments that the court made credibility findings, and that the court made its probable-cause determination based on the conduct of Yoa-kum’s family members. We do not address arguments Yoakum raises for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-e-yoakum-v-brian-lynn-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack