officers did not conduct a Terry stop. Instead, they descended on Binion en masse and immediately arrested her — without asking her questions, frisking her, or otherwise determining if she was carrying bricks. According to law that was clearly established at the time of Binion’s arrest, the officers had a duty to reasonably investigate before arresting Binion. “[L]aw enforcement officers have a duty to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation prior to arresting a suspect, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances and so long as ‘law enforcement would not [be] unduly hampered ... if the agents ... wait[ ] to obtain more facts before seeking to arrest.’ ” Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir. 1987)) (<HOLDING>). Further, evidence that the officers would
holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding under facts presented that probation officer was entitled to at least qualified immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where he spoke to the plaintiff for no more than 20 seconds refused to interview one of the witnesses and ignored plainly exculpatory evidence holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern