Meraz v. Patrol Officer Z. Tallon

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document38 Filed 01/09/25 Page 1of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JEROME M. MERAZ PLAINTIFF

Vv. CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5029

OFFICER Z. TALLON, #471,

Fayetteville Police Department DEFENDANT
ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
35) of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, filed in this case on December 20, 2024, regarding Defendant Officer
Z. Tallon’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22). Judge Ford recommends granting
the Motion and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Plaintiff Jerome M. Meraz filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 37) on January 2,
2025. On the same date, Mr. Meraz—without leave of Court—filed a supplement to his
response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b){1), the Court has reviewed the case de novo, giving particular consideration to
those portions of the R&R that drew objections. The Court also reviewed Mr. Meraz’s late-
filed supplement to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

According to the Complaint, Defendant Tallon violated Mr. Meraz’s constitutional
rights by arresting him without probable cause on April 2, 2022, for trespass and stalking.
“Whether the police had probable cause at the time of [Meraz’s] arrest is a question of
law for the court to decide.” Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir.
2010). Even where probable cause is lacking, a police officer is entitled to qualified

1

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document38 Filed 01/09/25 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

immunity for a warrantless arrest if there was at least arguable probable cause; in other

words, an officer's objectively reasonable mistake about the existence of probable cause

is enough to immunize him from liability. See Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1226 (8th

Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In his Objections to the R&R, Mr. Meraz does not dispute any of the material facts
that Defendant Tallon claims he knew at the time of arrest. Rather, Mr. Meraz attempts
to justify, explain, and excuse these facts. For example, the victim who called the police
that day was Mr. Meraz’s ex-girlfriend. She told police that Mr. Meraz had previously
trespassed at her apartment complex—which was true—and that she had obtained an
order of protection that he was violating—also true. She stated that Mr. Meraz appeared
at her apartment door and refused to leave; he kept ringing her doorbell and was dressed
in a wig, gloves, and a black mask, which made her fearful.! Mr. Meraz also does not
dispute that immediately prior to the arrest, Defendant Tallon was informed by police
dispatch that Mr. Meraz had a previous conviction for stalking and kidnapping and that he
had trespassed at the victim’s apartment before.

In Mr. Meraz’s view, Defendant Tallon lacked probable cause to arrest him for
trespass because he did not succeed in entering the victim’s apartment. Mr. Meraz insists
she invited him over and that he “did not knowingly put [the victim] in distress.” (Doc. 37,
pp. 2-5). He also points out that there is nothing illegal, per se, about wearing masks and
wigs.

Mr. Meraz’s views on the propriety of his behavior and his subjective intent in

1 These items were found in Mr. Meraz’s car after his arrest.

2

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 38 Filed 01/09/25 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

visiting his ex-girlfriend’s apartment on the day of the arrest are entirely immaterial, since
the probable cause analysis turns on what the arresting officer reasonably believed at the
time. See Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 523 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding that probable
cause exists when the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officer is
sufficient to lead him to believe the defendant has committed or is committing a2 crime).
The Court, like the Magistrate Judge, has “little trouble finding that probabie cause existed
to arrest Meraz for trespassing and stalking.” (Doc. 35, p. 12).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Meraz’s Objections are OVERRULED, the
R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22)

is GRANTED. Judgment will enter concuyrently with this opini

Tt
IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of January, 2

at BROO
UNITED 5 ee STRICT JUDGE