Office entitled to qualified immunity for tripping body-throw maneuver used on naked gentleman making threatening gestures.
Given the ordinary and reasonable inference that people know what they are doing, the police offices had sufficient probable cause for the arrest, given the illegal conduct that they had witnessed, despite the claim by others at the scene that the plaintiff was experiencing a medical episode; the probable cause was not dissipated by the time the plaintiff was released from the hospital, since from the police officers' perspective, the conduct seems inconsistent with the asserted condition.
While the explanation for the plaintiff's actions was ambiguous, this did not mean that it was obvious that the story offered by the plaintiff and others at the scene.
Omission of claimed medical condition from report's supporting affidavit wasn't a deliberate fabrication, as precedent requires that the officer either knew or had cause to know of actual innocence, or used coercive and abusive investigatory techniques.
DISSENT:
Given the exculpatory asserted medical condition, the determination of probable cause required an assessment of the credibility of the varying claims, and reconstructing and judging the reasonableness of these determinations is a matter for the jury.
(Samples of questions that the plaintiff's lawyer might ask on cross.)