Background and Procedural History

Mark Petersen (“Petersen”) brought a 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“§ 1983”) lawsuit against Deputy Stefanie Pedersen (“Deputy Pedersen”) alleging false arrest and an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Petersen v. Pedersen, 2025 WL 1637317 (7th Cir.). On the evening of December 27, 2018, Deputy Pedersen of the Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to a report of a crash outside the caller’s residence. Upon arrival, Deputy Pedersen observed tire marks running through the yard and broken tree branches. Additionally, Deputy Pedersen witnessed Petersen attempting to change a flat tire on an immobilized car and nearly topple over while torquing the lug nuts with a crowbar. Petersen also smelled of alcohol and had glassy eyes. A search of the car’s plates revealed that the car belonged to Peterson. Petersen had a history of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, being uncooperative with law enforcement, and having a suspended license which Deputy Pedersen was aware of. Deputy Pedersen exited her vehicle and approached Petersen; however he began to wander away from her. Deputy Pedersen grabbed Petersen after he ignored multiple commands to “Stop!” During questioning, Petersen claimed that his daughter drove the car that night, but bystanders did not corroborate this story. As a result of these circumstances, probable cause existed and Petersen was formally arrested for drunk driving.

After the initial arrest, Deputy Pedersen drove Petersen to the local hospital to conduct a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) test. On the way, she attempted to corroborate Petersen’s story about his daughter and found that he misstated his daughter’s name. A lapse which indicated intoxication. Once at the hospital, Petersen refused a BAC blood test. Deputy Pedersen sought a search warrant for a BAC test and told the judge (over the phone) the circumstances of the arrest. The Judge authorized a warrant for the BAC test. The next day, Petersen was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated. However, this charge was ultimately dismissed because a trial court found that Deputy Pedersen lacked probable cause to arrest. Mr. Petersen then sued the officers involved in his arrest in the district court. After a motion to dismiss, only two claims survived, and Deputy Pedersen was the last defendant remaining. After a grant of summary judgment in favor of Deputy Pedersen, this case was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (“Court”).

Issues on Appeal

The issues before the Court are (1) whether Deputy Pedersen had probable cause to arrest Mr. Petersen, (2) whether the blood draw was made pursuant to a valid search warrant, and (3) whether Deputy Pedersen had qualified immunity from Mr. Petersen’s claims.

Ruling and Rationale

Regarding Mr. Peterson’s false arrest allegation, a §1983 claim for false arrest cannot survive if the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Mwangangi v. Nielsen, 48 F.4th 816, 825 (7th Cir. 2022). In typical cases, the issue of probable cause will be decided by a jury after surviving summary judgment.  Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2013). However, this case is atypical because both parties agree on the facts but dispute whether those facts establish probable cause. Petersen argued that while he was drunk, Deputy Pedersen did not have probable cause to believe that he had operated the vehicle that night. The Court stated that Deputy Pedersen did not need to be certain that Petersen was driving while intoxicated. Given the tire tracks, broken branches, tire changing, Pedersen’s past familiarity with Petersen, and that Petersen smelled like alcohol, the Court found that Deputy Pedersen had a wealth of information to reasonably conclude that probable cause to arrest existed. Regarding qualified immunity, the Court noted that an officer needs only arguable probable cause to establish immunity. Given that Deputy Pedersen had actual probable cause, a higher standard, she is entitled to qualified immunity even if probable cause did not exist. For the first time on appeal, Petersen raised a collateral estoppel argument relying on the state court’s determination that Deputy Pedersen lacked probable cause. First, the Court found that this argument was waived since it was not raised in the district court. Second, given that Deputy Pedersen had already been found to be protected by qualified immunity, she would still be entitled to summary judgment.

Concerning the claim that the unconsented blood draw constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, the Court noted that “[s]earches undertaken pursuant to valid search warrants are presumptively valid.” Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 613 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). To challenge the validity of a warrant, evidence needs to be put forth that establishes an officer made false statements to the judge that authorized the warrant. No evidence existed of Deputy Pedersen making false statements to the judge. Petersen alleged that Deputy Pedersen told the judge that she saw him driving. The Court, looking at the transcript of the call and the body camera footage, noted that the judge explicitly acknowledged that no one saw Petersen driving. Without any misrepresented facts, the Court found that the search warrant was valid and the blood drawing lawful. For this reason, Deputy Pedersen is entitled to qualified immunity and as such, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Deputy Pedersen.

Conclusion

This case illustrates best practices for municipalities and their police officers. Officers should carefully build probable cause by observing physical evidence, evaluating a suspect’s physical behavior, and attempting to corroborate any alibis or explanations that a suspect offers. Thorough investigations help support probable cause and defeat lawsuits. While seeking judicial warrants, officers should be careful not to misrepresent the circumstances. All facts relayed to judges must be accurate, objective, and supported by the officer’s observations or evidence. Misstatements can undermine the validity of the warrant.

Authored by:

not-pictured: Zachary Frye