From Judge Daniel Crabtree's opinion yesterday in Alea v. Ptacek (D. Kan.):
Plaintiff Galicano Alea was walking his dog on a sidewalk adjacent to a public middle school. He was fiddling with his phone to adjust his music selection. But to defendant Julian Garcia, a police officer, it appeared that plaintiff was filming school children. So, he detained plaintiff and demanded identification. Plaintiff refused. Officer Garcia eventually released plaintiff, who continued his walk. Still on school property, plaintiff then encountered a second officer, defendant Scott Ptacek. Officer Ptacek detained plaintiff and demanded identification. When plaintiff refused, Officer Ptacek arrested him for interference with a law enforcement officer. Six months later, prosecuting authorities dismissed all charges against plaintiff. Plaintiff now has sued the officers for violating his Fourth Amendment rights….
Though plaintiff's conduct arguably appeared creepy, Officer Garcia, lacking reasonable suspicion, lacked a lawful basis for the detention. And Officer Ptacek lacked a lawful basis to arrest plaintiff for refusing identification. To hold otherwise would allow police officers to demand identification from anyone near a school while using a smartphone—parents taking first-day-of-school videos, a grandparent trying to pull up directions while in the school drop-off line, or dog walkers holding their phone near their chest….
[D]efendants offer just one crime to support their reasonable-suspicion position: reckless stalking as defined by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5427(a)(1) …:
Recklessly engaging in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person in the circumstances of the targeted person to fear for such person's safety, or the safety of a member of such person's immediate family and the targeted person is actually placed in such fear[.]
Defendants identify three factors they contend supported reasonable suspicion: the weekend reports about someone photographing children at pools and parks; plaintiff walking near the school during drop-off hours; and plaintiff ostensibly filming children. The court considers each fact, in turn, below, then considers all three of them together….
