On January 22, 2007, Nyokia Stokes got into a conflict with another third-grader at her school. That evening, the conflict transferred to the parents when the other girl’s mother and a male companion...

On January 22, 2007, Nyokia Stokes got into a conflict with another third-grader at her school. That evening, the conflict transferred to the parents when the other girl’s mother and a male companion went to Nyokia’s home and threatened her. The police were called but deferred to the school. On January 23, 2007, a principal observed what looked like a fight among several adult women in the office of the school. The women were yelling, pulling out hair, and rolling around on the ground. At the principal’s urging, the police arrested the four women. After criminal charges were dropped, the four women brought a claim for false arrest against the principal and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Stokes argue that because they were not the aggressors in the fight, the principal did not have probable cause to swear out the criminal complaints that caused their arrests. In this jurisdiction, probable cause exists if, at the time of the arrest, the circumstances known to the defendant are sufficient to cause a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the person committed an offense. Did the principal have probable cause? What reasons would you use to support your argument? Stokes v. Board of Education of Chicago, 599 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2010).