The federal judge overseeing an excessive-force lawsuit against St. Paul and three police officers didn’t mask her skepticism of the cops’ defense Monday.

She said the officers who responded to a security guard’s report of an uncooperative male in the skyway had reason to investigate, but not probable cause to make an arrest.

Though U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson didn’t rule on the city’s move to dismiss the lawsuit, she said she was “fairly persuaded we’re going to have a trial in this case.”

Chris Lollie filed his federal lawsuit in November 2014 claiming excessive force, false arrest, illegal stop and seizure, battery and false imprisonment.

On Jan. 31, 2014, Lollie was in the skyway in the First National Bank Building when a security guard told him he couldn’t sit in chairs in a lounge area, then called police. Lollie initially refused to leave, saying there was no sign that the area was private. He waited for several minutes but got up and was walking away as officer Lori Hayne arrived.

The two walked and talked for several minutes, during which Lollie began recording the interaction on his cellphone, before officers Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt joined.

The three officers — who later claimed Lollie was actively resisting — used a stun gun to subdue him and then arrested him. Misdemeanor charges against Lollie were later dismissed.

Lollie posted a YouTube video of the exchange, which got more than a million views in its first week online and drew national attention.

He followed with his lawsuit, and the city filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case.

Nelson heard arguments Monday.

She pressed Assistant City Attorney Judith Hanson on why the officers took the security guard’s word and arrested Lollie without fully investigating and corroborating the claims.

Hanson said the officers, particularly Hayne, who had worked the skyways for years, had experience working with security guards.

“But (the officer) had no clue whether this was subject to an easement or was private,” the judge said of the seating area. An easement allows public use of private property.

“That’s why she shouldn’t arrest him,” the judge said. “Once he’s left and gone to a public area, it’s done. She can’t be sure whether the security officer knows where the line is.”

Hanson said that as Lollie and Hayne walked together, the officer radioed for backup. Responding officers have said they “could tell from Hayne’s voice she was tense,” and they considered it an issue of officer safety.

“It wasn’t until officer Schmidt arrived and deployed the Taser that they finally had control over Mr. Lollie and were able to place him under arrest,” Hanson said.

Lollie’s attorney, Andrew Irlbeck, said Lollie had every right to walk away from the officers. He hadn’t done anything illegal and had not been ordered to stop, he said.

Irlbeck argued against the officers’ claims of immunity, saying “mistakes have to be reasonable.”

“It’s not a reasonable mistake to arrest Mr. Lollie in this circumstance without any evidence,” he said.

The question at the center of Lollie’s case is whether the chairs where he was sitting were in a public or private area.

They’re in the skyway, which is a public passageway, and no signs near the seating area said they were not for public use.

“The public’s use of those areas has been open and notorious for 50 years,” Irlbeck said.

It wasn’t until recently, after Lollie’s case, that building and city officials made efforts to mark the area as private, Irlbeck said.

Even so, at the time Lollie was arrested, the officers did not verify that Lollie was or was not trespassing.

“If we’re hung up on the easement (issue), which I don’t think we should be, they (the officers) failed to do any sort of investigation,” Irlbeck told the court Monday. “Not because Mr. Lollie wouldn’t let them. … It was just — boom — you’re under arrest, you’re going to jail, without any backup investigation.”

The city last week filed with the court a surveyor’s report on the site, which purported to show where the public portion of the skyway lies.

Irlbeck asked the court to block the report as evidence, saying it was filed past the deadline to disclose evidence and expert witnesses.

Hanson said the report had only recently come to her, and that the findings didn’t amount to an expert opinion and didn’t affect Lollie’s claims against the officers.

“You and I disagree on whether or not this is an expert opinion,” the judge told Hanson, adding, “The objective reasonableness of the officers’ conduct is subject to whether one believes this area is public or private.”

She struck the city’s survey report and gave Lollie’s legal team time to pursue its own expert survey. She withheld a decision on the city dismissal request, but said she anticipates a trial.

The judge also ordered the parties to enter into settlement discussions, with a tentative trial date of April.