Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13213/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13213

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JERRY L. HOFFMAN, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOSE DELGADO, 

in his individual capacity,

CITY OF PUNTA GORDA, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

CITY OF PUNTA GORDA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13213

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00130-SPC-NPM

____________________

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Hoffman was arrested while violating a local ordinance 

prohibiting audio and video recording in municipal buildings. He 

argues that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and that 

his arrest involved excessive force and false arrest under the Fourth 

Amendment. The district court dismissed Hoffman’s complaint 

with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Because Hoffman fails 

to adequately allege that the ordinance violated his constitutional 

rights, that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, and that

excessive force was used, we affirm the dismissal.

I.

Hoffman is a self-described photojournalist. According to 

his complaint, in July 2022, he and three associates entered the 

lobby of the police headquarters for the City of Punta Gorda, 

Florida. They intended to inquire about the police department’s 

failure to respond to their Freedom of Information Act requests. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 2 of 11
23-13213 Opinion of the Court 3

Hoffman carried a camera, with which he planned to record his 

interactions at the headquarters. But doing so violated an 

ordinance prohibiting filming on city property—except during 

public meetings—without the consent of those who are filmed and 

without approval from the city manager. Punta Gorda, Fla., Code 

of Ordinances ch. 15, § 15-48(e), (h)(15) (2024).

According to Hoffman’s complaint—the factual allegations 

of which we must credit at this stage, three officers approached 

Hoffman and asked whether he was recording. They informed 

Hoffman that recording violated a city ordinance and asked him to 

step outside. Believing that this request violated his First 

Amendment rights, Hoffman refused to leave. One of the officers

again asked Hoffman to “please step outside.” In response to a 

question by Hoffman about the consequences of violating the 

ordinance, another officer responded that the penalty would be a 

fine because “it’s not arrestable.” According to Hoffman’s 

complaint, which must be credited at this stage, the officer told 

Hoffman that he was “being fine” and was “willing to step outside.” 

Without complying with the repeated requests to leave, Hoffman 

asked to speak to a police information officer.

At this point, a fourth officer—Jose Delgado—walked into 

the lobby and reiterated that Hoffman should exit the building.

Hoffman asked Delgado not to touch him, but Delgado allegedly 

approached and began to arrest him. Hoffman alleges that 

Delgado “forcefully shoved” Hoffman into a wall, grabbed his 

wrist, tried to pull him towards the exit, and grabbed him several 

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13213

more times. Hoffman swore at and verbally berated Delgado 

before attempting to exit the building during the arrest. Delgado 

allegedly struck Hoffman with a blow that shut off his camera, 

twisted his wrists, and caused him pain while arresting him.

Hoffman alleges that Delgado twice struck Hoffman in the back 

with his knee, twisted his wrist again, and pulled on his handcuffed 

arms. An examination at a hospital revealed that Hoffman suffered 

no broken bones.

Hoffman sued both Delgado and the City of Punta Gorda 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint, which is 

operative for this appeal, he claimed that the anti-filming ordinance 

violated his First Amendment rights, Delgado’s actions constituted 

First Amendment retaliation, and that the arrest violated the 

Fourth Amendment as excessive force and false arrest.1 The 

district court dismissed Hoffman’s complaint with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim. Hoffman now appeals.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 

for failure to state a claim. Quality Auto Painting Ctr. of Roselle, Inc.

v. State Farm Indem. Co., 917 F.3d 1249, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019). At 

this stage, we accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and 

1 Additionally, Hoffman sought a writ of quo warranto and “the revocation of 

the City’s charter,” and he alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment and 

due process rights. Because Hoffman abandoned these issues by not raising 

them on appeal, we do not address them further. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines 

Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 4 of 11
23-13213 Opinion of the Court 5

view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. To 

survive, these factual allegations must allow “the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

III.

On appeal, Hoffman argues that he properly pleaded 

violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree 

on both counts and therefore affirm the dismissal of his complaint.

A.

Hoffman contends that the ordinance, which prohibits

recording in city-owned buildings in most circumstances, violates

the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. The 

ordinance has two relevant provisions. The first prohibits 

recording “within City-owned, controlled, and leased property” 

unless the videographer obtains “the consent of all persons whose 

voice or image is being recorded.” Punta Gorda, Fla., Code of 

Ordinances ch. 15, § 15-48(e) (2024). The second bars audio or 

video recording “anywhere inside of City buildings,” except “as 

otherwise approved by the City Manager” or a designee. Id. § 15-

48(h)(15). Neither provision applies to official public meetings. Id.

§ 15-48(e), (h)(15). 

Hoffman is correct that this Circuit has long recognized that 

the “First Amendment protects the right to gather information 

about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, 

a right to record matters of public interest.” Smith v. City of 

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 23-13213

Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).2 Recording falls

within the ambit of First Amendment guarantees. Id. Like all First 

Amendment rights, however, the right to record is not absolute. 

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 360 (1976). Indeed, “the Constitution 

does not require the government to ‘grant access to all who wish 

to exercise their right to free speech,’ no matter the setting, 

‘without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption 

that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.’” McDonough v. 

Garcia, 116 F.4th 1319, 1322 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (quoting 

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799–

800 (1985)). Instead, the validity of a regulation depends on the 

forum in which it applies. Id. Our cases recognize four types of 

forums: the traditional public forum, the designated public forum, 

the limited public forum, and the nonpublic forum. Id.

The District Court treated the police department’s lobby as 

a limited public forum. Because Hoffman joins in this 

2 Hoffman abandoned any argument based on the Florida Constitution’s 

protection for the freedom of speech by failing to raise it in his initial brief on 

appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Moreover, both counts in his complaint are raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

which can vindicate only rights arising from the federal Constitution or federal 

statutes—not state constitutions. Club Madonna, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 924 

F.3d 1370, 1378 (11th Cir. 2019). In any event, the Florida Supreme Court has 

stated that the “scope of the protection accorded to freedom of expression” 

under the Florida Constitution “is the same as is required under the First 

Amendment” to the federal Constitution. Dep’t of Educ. v. Lewis, 416 So. 2d 

455, 461 (Fla. 1982); see also Florida Ass’n of Pro. Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legis. 

Info. Servs. of the Florida. Off. of Legis. Servs., 525 F.3d 1073, 1076 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 6 of 11
23-13213 Opinion of the Court 7

characterization and the defendants do not contest it, we will 

consider it under the standard for limited public forums. There are, 

however, good arguments that the lobby is really a nonpublic 

forum. Like a military base or a federal building, police 

headquarters are not “open to the public at large for discussion of 

any and all topics.” M.N.C. of Hinesville, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of 

Defense, 791 F.2d 1466, 1473 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gilbert, 

920 F.2d 878, 884 (11th Cir. 1991); Barrett v. Walker Cnty. Sch. Dist., 

872 F.3d 1209, 1224 (11th Cir. 2017). Lobbies of police departments 

generally exist to permit “certain groups” to discuss specific

topics—namely, permitting those with legitimate public business 

to discuss public safety needs. McDonough, 116 F.4th at 1328

(quoting Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 106–07 

(2001)). In any event, the standard we apply when reviewing 

speech regulations in limited public forums is the same standard 

we apply for nonpublic forums. Id. at 1324. For limited public 

forums, restrictions “on speech must be viewpoint neutral and 

‘reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.’” Id. at 

1328 (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 

U.S. 819, 829 (1995)). 

Here, the anti-recording ordinance is reasonable. The First 

Amendment does not require the government to “permit all forms 

of speech on property that it owns and controls.” Int’l Soc’y for 

Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992). The city 

“has the right to exercise control over access to” the “workplace in 

order to avoid interruptions to the performance of the duties of its 

employees.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 23-13213

U.S. 788, 805–06 (1985). A prohibition on recording protects the 

police headquarters from distractions and guards sensitive 

documents from confidentiality threats. The ordinance thus 

secures the building for its intended purpose of facilitating 

assistance for those with public safety needs. See Bloedorn v. Grube, 

631 F.3d 1218, 1231–32 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Moreover, the ordinance does not facially “discriminate on 

the basis of viewpoint.” McDonough, 116 F.4th at 1324. The two 

ordinance provisions ban recording in city-owned buildings 

without consent and without the approval of the city manager, 

respectively. Those general prohibitions do not regulate speech 

based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or 

perspective of the speaker.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829.

Hoffman fails to state a claim that the city violated his First 

Amendment rights by prohibiting him from recording in the police 

department lobby. That regulation as alleged is reasonable and 

viewpoint neutral, and thus valid in a limited public forum. See 

McDonough, 116 F.4th at 1328.3 Likewise, because the First 

Amendment did not protect Hoffman’s actions, he could not plead 

a claim against either Delgado or the city for retaliating against him 

3 Hoffman attempts to raise an unbridled discretion claim premised on the city 

manager’s role in providing permission to record inside city buildings. His 

complaint, however, failed to raise this argument, and therefore he cannot 

state a claim based upon it. See Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1353 (11th Cir. 2022). 

The City did not understand him to be alleging an unbridled discretion claim. 

Nor did the district court, which did not address that supposed argument in its 

order dismissing the complaint.

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 8 of 11
23-13213 Opinion of the Court 9

for exercising his First Amendment rights. Bailey v. Wheeler, 843 

F.3d 473, 480 (11th Cir. 2016). 

B.

Hoffman’s Fourth Amendment claims fair no better. He 

alleges that Delgado and the city falsely arrested him and exerted 

excessive force. Hoffman fails to state a claim of false arrest for a 

straightforward reason—the arrest was not “false.” The “existence 

of probable cause at the time of arrest is an absolute bar to a 

subsequent constitutional challenge to the arrest.” Brown v. City of 

Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). A reasonable belief 

that “a criminal offense has been or is being committed” creates 

probable cause. Id.

Here, even according to Hoffman’s allegations, Delgado had 

probable cause. Hoffman’s own complaint admits that he was 

violating the city ordinance when he was recording in the police 

department lobby. Despite repeated instructions from the officers 

present, Hoffman refused to cease recording or leave the premises. 

When Delgado approached Hoffman as he persisted in recording 

within the building, Hoffman still failed to exit. As a result, 

Delgado had probable cause to believe that Hoffman was violating 

Florida law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “resist, obstruct, or 

oppose” an officer’s “execution of any legal duty,” even without 

violence. Fla. Stat. § 843.02. And, as we held above, Hoffman fails 

to adequately allege that this arrest was invalid as a violation of the 

First Amendment.

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 23-13213

For similar reasons, Hoffman’s excessive force claim also 

fails. If an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, de minimis 

force cannot support a claim of excessive force. Zivojinovich v. 

Barner, 525 F.3d 1059, 1072 (11th Cir. 2008). Delgado, according to 

Hoffman’s own complaint, had probable cause to arrest Hoffman. 

And the force that the complaint alleges was employed by Delgado 

was de minimis under our Circuit’s precedents. Hoffman 

complains that Delgado allegedly pushed him against a wall, 

grabbed his wrists, pushed him towards an exit, struck his camera 

out of his hands, and caused him pain. We have said, however, 

that facts more serious than these allegations fell “well within the 

ambit of the de minimum force principle.” Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 

1253, 1258 n.4 (11th Cir. 2000). “Painful handcuffing,” even with 

resulting bone fractures unlike the alleged facts here, and 

“twist[ing]” or “jerking” an arrestee’s arms do not violate the 

Fourth Amendment. Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th 

Cir. 2002). Likewise, this Court found that, when an officer 

“grabbed” the plaintiff “and shoved him a few feet against a 

vehicle,” “pushed [his] knee into” the plaintiff’s back and shoved 

the plaintiff’s “head against the van,” invasively searched the 

plaintiff “in an uncomfortable manner,” handcuffed the plaintiff, 

and caused minor bruising, “the facts sound little different from the 

minimal amount of force and injury involved in a typical arrest.” 

Nolin, 207 F.3d at 1258 n.4.

* * *

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 10 of 11
23-13213 Opinion of the Court 11

Because Hoffman failed to allege that Delgado and the City 

of Punta Gorda violated his First or Fourth Amendment rights, we 

AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Hoffman’s complaint.

USCA11 Case: 23-13213 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2025 Page: 11 of 11