United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2541 SHANE E. LYBERGER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCOTT SNIDER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 19-cv-369-SPM — Stephen P. McGlynn, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 15, 2022 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2022 ____________________

Before WOOD, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. WOOD, Circuit Judge. One night, plaintiffs Shane Lyberger, his brother Andrew Lyberger, and Robert Dailey spotted a woman who they believed was committing a traffic offense. The men took it upon themselves to follow her to her family’s home and confront her; they refused to leave her family’s property when asked to do so. After the woman called the po- lice, the night ended with all three plaintiffs in handcuffs. In 2 No. 21-2541 the end, however, the District Attorney’s office declined to pursue criminal charges. The Lyberger brothers and Dailey were not mollified by that outcome. All three brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the arresting officers: Scott Snider, Andrew Harvard, and Jamie James. The plaintiffs allege that the offic- ers unlawfully stopped, searched, and arrested them in viola- tion of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. Because for Fourth Amendment purposes the officers had reasonable sus- picion for the initial stop and probable cause to arrest, and the First Amendment adds nothing of importance to the analysis, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. I As we must in an appeal from a grant of summary judg- ment, we recount the disputed facts in the light most favora- ble to the non-moving parties (in this case, the plaintiffs). See Kemp v. Fulton County, 27 F.4th 491, 492 (7th Cir. 2022). On April 2, 2017, the two Lybergers and Dailey decided to spend their evening observing police activity in order to pro- duce content for their YouTube channel, “Southern Illinois Observers.” (To avoid confusion, we refer to the Lybergers by their first names when necessary, and we likewise refer to Lisa and Eric Thompson by their first names.) While driving around Centralia, Illinois, in Shane’s car, the three observed Lisa Thompson driving while holding an infant in her lap. The plaintiffs thought that Lisa was also holding a cellphone and decided to follow her home. They tailed her down a one- way road that led to her mother-in-law’s home. When Lisa parked, Dailey got out of Shane’s car, began recording a No. 21-2541 3 video, walked onto the driveway, and confronted Lisa while she sat in her stationary vehicle. Dailey’s video shows him on the Thompson family’s driveway while he and Lisa argued. About a minute later, Lisa’s husband Eric Thompson walked out of the house, took the child inside, and repeatedly told the plaintiffs to get off the family’s property. Dailey refused to leave, prompting Lisa to warn him that she was calling the police. She then called 911 and informed the police that a man had followed her to her home and that she “told him to get off my property and he’s still there recording me.” The plaintiffs decided to wait in their car until the police arrived. The car was parked to the side of the Thompsons’ driveway. Dailey kept recording while they waited. The tape shows the plaintiffs discussing whether they were on a pri- vate road; one of the Lyberger brothers can be heard worrying that Dailey was clearly on the Thompsons’ private driveway. The first person to respond to