Did Petitioner's arrest and subsequent detention based on her speech violate her clearly established rights as set forth in Watts v. United States, Virginia v. Black, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., and Brandenburg v. Ohio, such that the arresting officers do not enjoy qualified immunity?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Kimberly Thames was praying on the public sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic when a clinic guard accused her of saying: “J prophesy bombs are going to fall and they’e going to fall in the near future” and later claimed she said, “bombs, bombs on America, and bombs will blow up this building.” Thames was arrested and jailed for over 49 hours because, according to the senior officer at the scene, “you can't say anything about bombs near a facility that performs abortions.” Thames was arrested and jailed for pure speech. The Sixth Circuit held that Respondent police officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably believed that Thames’s speech was a criminal threat. It also held that Respondent City of Westland was not liable for Thames’s arrest, even though the arrest was authorized by City policy according to its Rule 30(b)(6) witness and ratified by its Chief of Police. 1. Did Petitioner’s arrest and subsequent detention based on her speech violate her clearly established rights as set forth in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 3438 (20038), NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), such that the arresting officers do not enjoy qualified immunity? 2. Is the City liable under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for Thames’s arrest and subsequent detention for allegedly ii mentioning bombs outside a facility that performs abortions—a decision which was authorized by City policy and ratified by its Chief of Police and the City’s designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness?