Supplemental Analysis: Improper Arrest Without Probable Cause (August 2018)

The August 2018 incident involving Mr. Nuno's arrest without probable cause presents a textbook case of false imprisonment, Fourth Amendment violations, and malicious prosecution under both federal and Montana law. This incident further establishes the pattern of coordinated harassment and abuse of legal process that has characterized the multi-jurisdictional campaign against Mr. Nuno.

I. Federal Constitutional Violations Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A. Fourth Amendment Violations - Arrest Without Probable Cause

The August 2018 arrest constitutes a clear violation of Mr. Nuno's Fourth Amendment rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983[1]. Under the Supreme Court's holding in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, probable cause must be assessed individually for each charge and arrest[2][3]. The facts establish that:

  1. No Valid Warrant Existed: Bryan Tipp's investigation confirmed no new warrant had been issued for Mr. Nuno's arrest[Docs Needed].
  2. No Prosecutorial Authority: Multiple prosecutors handling Mr. Nuno's cases were unaware of any basis for the arrest[Docs Needed].
  3. Informal Coordination: The arrest resulted from an off-record phone call between Washington and Montana law enforcement, bypassing proper legal channels[Docs Needed].

This conduct falls squarely within the Chiaverini framework, where the Court held that arrests lacking probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment regardless of other pending charges[2][3].

B. Malicious Prosecution Under Fourth Amendment

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Thompson v. Clark establishes that malicious prosecution claims under § 1983 require proof that officials initiated charges without probable cause[4][3]. The August 2018 arrest demonstrates:

II. Montana State Law Violations

A. False Imprisonment (MCA § 27-2-204)

Under Montana law, false imprisonment claims must be filed within two years of the incident[5][6][7]. The August 2018 arrest constitutes false imprisonment under Montana common law as:

  1. Unlawful Restraint: Mr. Nuno was detained without legal authority or probable cause[8].
  2. Substantial Interference with Liberty: The multi-day detention prevented Mr. Nuno from moving freely[8].