when Stryker was sent to “bite and hold”. Therefore, Defendants conclude that the governmental interest at stake here was suspect Mario Zephier’s capture, and this constituted a substantial governmental interest. Plaintiff contends that Ulrich’s belief that Plaintiff was Mario Zephier was unreasonable, and therefore, the governmental interest here was not substantial. Plaintiff also argues that the governmental interest was minor because Plaintiff was arrested for only minor offenses (trespassing and resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer). If Ulrich’s belief was reasonable, then the governmental interest here would be a substantial one, possibly justifying the use of substantial force. See Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 804, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 1111, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971) (<HOLDING>). i. Factual Issues Whether the Property was
recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested holding that officers reasonable mistake as to a suspects identity entitled the officers to do what the law would have allowed had the correct suspect been arrested ie perform a search incident to arrest holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity holding that an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search