Tucker

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Tucker appeals the judgment of the district court. We affirm. Because *710 the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here in detail. However, we note that this is the second time we have considered this case on appeal. In the first appeal, we reversed the grant of summary judgment because of the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning the arrest. Those fact issues have now been resolved by a jury.

Based on the facts as they have now been determined, we concluded that Tucker’s rights under the Fourth Amendment were not infringed by his arrest. Because statutes are presumed to be constitutional until judicially declared otherwise, an arrest made with probable cause in reliance upon a statute thereafter declared unconstitutional on its face or as applied is usually valid and will not give rise to an action under § 1983. See Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 38 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979) (“The enactment of a law forecloses speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality.”); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (Police…