A uniformed

officer tells you you're under arrest. He handcuffs you, takes you to the ground, puts you in a patrol car and another officer drives you to the precinct.

Are you, in fact, under arrest?

Not necessarily, according to Deputy City Attorney William Manlove.

In court filings and oral arguments Wednesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks, Manlove said those actions -- even when an officer says "you are under arrest"-- don't automatically constitute an arrest.

The argument is part of the city's defense against a

that accuses a Portland officer of using excessive force and wrongfully arresting a man after he jaywalked in downtown Portland while trying to catch a bus.

While state law allows police officers to detain people for violations such as jaywalking, it prohibits them from making an arrest.

The case dates back to June 22, 2010. The plaintiff, Scott Miller, admitted in court filings that he cut diagonally across Southwest Second Avenue near Madison Street around 7:30 a.m., concerned about being late for work as an X-ray technician.

Dean Halley, a Portland police officer for more than 20 years, saw Miller jaywalk, followed him, and yelled "sir" until Miller realized that he was being hailed, said Miller's lawyer, Leonard Berman.

The police officer was clenching and unclenching his fists as he approached Miller, Miller said in court filings, causing him to ask whether the officer was going to hurt him. The officer demanded to see his identification. As Miller was pulling it out, he asked why, triggering the officer to declare "That's it. You're under arrest," according to the lawsuit.

Miller said the officer then grabbed his arm, handcuffed him and knocked him to the ground.

Miller experienced a panic attack while he was driven in the police car around the block to the Central Precinct's entrance. There, emergency medical workers gave him oxygen. He was then cited for failing to obey a traffic signal.

Although Halley disputes some details of the encounter, he admitted in court filings to telling Miller he was under arrest or using words to that effect.

Miller said he sustained injuries to his wrists, knees and shoulders in the arrest. He was later convicted by a judge of the traffic violation.

The city argues that "objective facts" in the case show that Miller's detention did not amount to an arrest. Manlove said Miller was in custody for 30 minutes, wore handcuffs for seven to eight minutes and ended up only about a half-block from the original encounter.

Berman countered that the episode was far more than a detention.

"We argue that if it looks like an arrest, smells like an arrest, tastes like an arrest ... it is an arrest," he said.

But even if it is considered an arrest, the city attorney argued, a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishes that an arrest for a non-arrestable offense does not violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure as Berman contends.

In Virginia v. Moore, police arrested a man on suspicion of driving with a suspended license, a non-arrestable misdemeanor in Virginia. Police also seized drug evidence during the stop. Although the defendant sought to have the evidence thrown out based on the unauthorized arrest, the Supreme Court disagreed.

The police officer had probable cause that a crime -- driving with a suspended license -- was in progress and making an arrest is reasonable under the Constitution, the justices found. Even if a state has more restrictive practices regarding search and seizure, that does not invalidate the less restrictive standard under the Constitution, they wrote.

But Berman noted that driving with a suspended license in Virginia is a misdemeanor crime punishable by jail time. In the Portland case, jaywalking is a violation --

not a crime -- and does not carry any jail time.

Berman also argued the arrest was clearly unlawful, based on Halley's police report.

In the report, Berman said, Halley wrote that he arrested Miller for failing to provide identification during a pedestrian stop. There's no state law requiring pedestrians to carry identification, he said.

There's also no law requiring people to have their ID available within a few seconds -- which is all Miller had before Halley declared he was under arrest, Berman said.

Miller knew he had made a mistake when he jaywalked, Berman said, but "he paid an inordinate price for that due to Mr. Halley's conduct."

The judge did not indicate how soon he will decide any of the claims in the lawsuit or allow them to proceed to trial.

-- Helen Jung