Seventh Circuit finds principal had probable cause to charge, order arrest of student's parent and grandmother after office brawl 

In Stokes v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 09-1180 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit, affirming the district court's decision, found that a principal had probable cause to criminally charge plaintiffs and cause their arrest after witnessing what appeared to be a fight in the school office.

Plaintiffs, the mother and grandmother of an elementary school student, brought suit against the Chicago Public School District and Principal Johnny Banks. They alleged their  Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Banks  signed a criminal complaint against them and ordered their arrests following the altercation.

Banks walked into the school office and witnessed what appeared to be a fight among four women. According to witness testimony, one plaintiff was attacked by two women. Evidence offered after the incident showed that neither plaintiffs retaliated physically or verbally to the attack.

During the incident, 30 kindergarteners were dismissed from school, saw the attack in the office, and began to yell. One student was knocked over as a result of the altercation.

Banks entered the office as the fight was ending or immediately after it ended. He briefly talked to the four women to find out what happened. One plaintiff told Banks that the other plaintiff had nothing to do with the incident. A school custodian also told Banks he did not think the plaintiffs should be arrested. Despite these statements, he filed criminal charges against all of them for disorderly conduct and instructed the police to arrest them.

Criminal charges against the plaintiffs were dismissed early the next morning and they were released. The principal later acknowledged to one of the plaintiffs that he had made a mistake and that he should only have had the other two women arrested.

The court found that the facts, taken in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, showed a reasonable person in Banks' position could have probable cause to believe that the plaintiffs engaged in disorderly conduct. The court also noted that Banks was not required to conduct a full investigation to identify the aggressors, since the potential danger to students and need to restore order to the school required him to take prompt action.

Finding Banks had probable cause, the court found the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' false arrest claims. The court found defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.