On August 28, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that arguable probable cause for battery was established where a teacher bear hugged and brought a student to the ground. In Schimandle v. DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office, No. 23-2151 (7th Cir. August 28, 2024), Justin Schimandle, Dean of Students at Kishwaukee Education Consortium, was arrested for battery and other aggravating charges in Fall 2019. Schimandle was found not guilty in his criminal bench trial, but sued the detective on his case, Josh Duehning, for false arrest. The 7th Circuit reviewed and confirmed the trial court’s decision that Duehning was entitled to qualified immunity since there was arguable probable cause.   

Background on Plaintiff

Justin Schimandle was the Dean of Students at Kishwaukee Education Consortium, a high school in Malta, Illinois. The school offered vocational classes to high school juniors and seniors who had non-violent disciplinary issues from surrounding schools in the area.

Incident

C.G., a student at Kishwaukee, was caught vaping by his classmates. The classmates reported the incident to Schimandle. Subsequently, Schimandle tried to confiscate C.G.’s bag to find his vape. C.G. refused, then later in the day Schimandle found him in a classroom and got ahold of his belongings. He informed C.G.’s guardians that C.G. was going to be suspended for the incident. Schimandle found C.G. to give him notice of his suspension, they went into Schimandle’s office and C.G. began yelling profanities at Schimandle. He began trying to stick his hands in his pockets to show him how he felt violated. Schimandle and C.G. got into a physical altercation where Schimandle dragged C.G. across the common area of the school, bear hugged him, and fell on top of him. Finally, other students were able to get help and when staff arrived, Schimandle released C.G.

Investigation

The DeKalb Police Department was called in to investigate the case by the Kishwaukee principal, Matthew Pierce. Detective Josh Duehning watched video camera footage of the incident that showed Schimandle reaching for C.G. to stop him from leaving the classroom where they were speaking. Schimandle ended up pushing C.G. into a room divider. Then Schimandle grabbed C.G. and placed him in the bear hug and dragged him across the “Common Area” and through the doors of his office, where he then fell on top of C.G. and held him down.

Duehning interviewed staff from the school to learn more about the incident. He obtained a written record from the staff members who observed the incident and Schimandle, himself, that matched up with the video footage described above.

Procedural History

On November 26, 2019, Duehning filed affidavits that supported an arrest warrant for Schimandle. The affidavits supported a charge of criminal battery, they alleged that Schimandle caused bodily harm to C.G. and made contact of an insulting and provoking nature when he carried C.G., fell on top of him, used his body to open a door, and struck C.G.’s head on the side of the door. Schimandle turned himself in on November 26, 2019, and shortly after was put on administrative leave and eventually lost his job.

He moved for a directed finding in his criminal case and was found not guilty.

Schimandle’s Lawsuit & District Court Dismissal

After his criminal bench trial, Schimandle sued the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office and Detective Duehning for false arrest. Duehning moved for judgment on the pleadings and the court granted the motion in his favor. The court held that probable cause existed to arrest Schimandle, and that Detective Duehning was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.

Schimandle’s Appeal

Schimandle argued on appeal at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (“Court”) that the district court erred when it ruled 1) that probable cause existed to arrest him for battery, and 2) that Duehning was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court chose to answer the second question posed first as it is dispositive, thus if qualified immunity is established, there would be no need to discuss the question of probable cause.

Qualified Immunity

To determine whether qualified immunity applied the Court must determine whether the record showed 1) a violation of a federal statute or constitutional right and 2) whether the right violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. The Court stated that Schimandle had the burden of proving that his right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. The Court found that Schimandle’s constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause was established at the time of the incident.

However, the Court explained that an officer would still be entitled to qualified immunity in a false arrest case if a “reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause existed.” The idea laid out by the court is often referred to as “arguable probable cause.” In the instant case, Schimandle was arrested for battery, in order to establish probable cause the detective would have to have proof that Schimandle knowingly caused bodily harm to an individual. Schimandle had physical contact with C.G., he grabbed him and pushed him into a room divider, and Schimandle, who was much larger than the teenage C.G., fell on top of him. The Court found that a reasonable officer considering the same circumstances could have reasonably believed probable cause existed for the charges.

The Court further supported its argument and stated that Duehning had firsthand information from interviews about a disturbance and corroborating footage showing the altercation. Plus, Schimandle admitted that he had bear hugged C.G., thus admitting to an element of the crime the warrant charged him with. Finally, the Court reasoned that a magistrate judge’s approval of the arrest bolstered the officer’s reasonable belief that probable cause supported the warrant and the application of qualified immunity. The Court cited Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535, 546 (2012) which concluded that the fact a neutral magistrate issued a warrant was a clear indicator that the officer acted in good faith and an objectively reasonable manner.

The Court concluded that arguable probable cause existed, and thus it agreed with the district court’s decision to grant qualified immunity.

Schimandle’s Other Arguments on Appeal

Schimandle argued that even if arguable probable cause existed, Duehning was still not entitled to qualified immunity because he had falsified information and purposely omitted exculpatory evidence from the warrant affidavits regarding a potential affirmative defense. Additionally, Schimandle argued that because Duehning acknowledged that Schimandle’s story was consistent with the video, Duehning’s signing of the affidavit asserting that there was sufficient evidence of battery constituted the falsification of documents.

Falsified Documents

The Court recognized that falsifying information would be a violation of Schimandle’s fourth amendment constitutional right. However, it concluded that Schimandle provided little evidence of what the false statements made by Duehning were. The Court stated that Schimandle argued that Duehning would have had to falsify information on the affidavits for the warrant because Duehning had admitted that Schimandle’s version of events was consistent with the video footage taken from the school and that video did not depict Schimandle committing a battery. However, while the video and Schimandle’s statements were consistent, the Court recognized that the video provided additional information that supported probable cause for battery. Additionally, because the video started after the altercation had began, it did not include audio, and the other witnesses did not see how the altercation began, the Court recognized Duehning could not fully adopt Schimandle’s version since there was no other evidence to corroborate it. As a result, the Court reasoned Duehning had to make his own conclusions beyond the version presented by Schimandle. Accordingly, the Court rejected Schimandle’s argument in this regard.

Officer’s Omission of Affirmative Defense From Affidavit

Schimandle claimed that Duehning knew or should have known during his investigation that Schimandle had an affirmative defense for his actions under 105 ILCS 5/24-24, which allows teachers to use reasonable force against students out of self-defense. He claimed that by leaving the affirmative defense out of the affidavits submitted in support of the arrest warrant for Schimandle, Duehning’s falsified information and intentionally omitted material, exculpatory evidence from the affidavits. The Court, however, found that there was no evidence that Duehning knew of the statute or that Schimandle informed Duehning of its existence. Moreover, the Court, relying on precedent, held that the existence of an affirmative defense, valid or not, would not have changed the probable cause determination because the existence of an affirmative defense does not negate probable cause to arrest. The Court pointed to precedent in reasoning that once probable cause is established an officer may leave the examination of possible defenses to the action to the courts. The Court ultimately concluded that even had the asserted affirmative defense been valid it was immaterial to the probable cause analysis and therefore not required to be included in the affidavit since an objectively reasonable officer could have still found probable despite the affirmative defense.

Conclusion

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Schimandle’s complaint. The Court found that arguable probable cause supported Schimandle’s arrest and was not defeated by Schimandle’s claimed affirmative defense, and as a result Duehning was entitled to qualified immunity, barring Schimandle from bringing his claim of malicious prosecution.

Authored by:

Samantha Galinson