In Pullin v. City of Canton (N.D. Ohio, 2001), 133 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1052, the district court found that factual issues precluded summary judgment on an officer's claim of qualified immunity. In that case, the police had stopped an automobile driven by a friend of the plaintiff. The plaintiff drove by, stopped her car, and got out. According to the officers, the plaintiff was combative and belligerent, and refused to leave the scene despite being ordered several times to do so. Id. at 1048. The plaintiff offered a different story, indicating that she came upon the scene only to see if she should contact her friend's family about his predicament. However, she was greeted with a barrage of questions and orders by the police, and started to leave the scene when requested. Id. at 1048-49. The district court noted that: "Pullin the plaintiff offers evidence that Dittmore the police officer acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in arresting her for obstructing official business. To make the arrest, Dittmore had to reasonably suspect Pullin was purposely trying to prevent him from doing his job. But Pullin says she told Dittmore that she had come upon the scene only to see if she should contact Barksdale's family. She further says she started to leave the scene at Dittmore's first request. Under such circumstances, no reasonable officer would conclude that Pullin approached the scene with a 'purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay' official police business. Ohio Rev. Code 2921.31." Id. at 1052.