seen the suspect and that Peterson was "adamant” that the man she had seen in the parking lot was the "same gentleman” in the school parking lot the next day. Moreover, Johnson, who had ordered the arrest, had read Shannon’s report and spoken with his officers and the women in the days following the incident. Even assuming that Sandahl or Henning knew nothing about the women's complaints, Johnson’s and Shannon's knowledge would be imputed to them. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232-33, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985); United States v. Sawyer, 224 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir.2000). 3 . Although courts have split on whether an arrest is per se unreasonable when an officer acts outside his or her jurisdiction, compare Abbott v. City of Crocker, 30 F.3d 994, 997-98 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), and Madsen v. Park City, 6 F.Supp.2d 938, 945
holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment