[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 41 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 03 42 -MS S-DAB ANA MARIA HAZLET ON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FERNANDO TRINIDAD, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, FRANK SIKOS, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, EDWARD ALBINO, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 26 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR TIN, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 1 of 11Defen da nt s Fe rn an do Trin id ad , Fran k S ik os , andEdwardAlb in o (t og ethe r,

“ th e o ffi cers ”), o ffi cers for th e Orl an do Po li ce Dep art m en t, ap pe al th e d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io ns forsu m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he ba si s o f qu al ifi edim m un it y . After care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm . On Dec em

be r 28 , 20 09 , Ana M ari e Hazl et onbro ug htsu itin st at e co urt un de r 42 U.S.C § 1 98 3, al le gi ng th atth e o ffi cers co m m it te d v ari ou s ci vi l ri gh ts vi ol at io ns an d c omm onlaw t orts whi le arre st in g h er i n h er h om e wit ho utfir st se cu rin g awarran t. Afterth e cas e was rem ov edto fed eral co urt, the off ic ers 1 m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he ba si s o f qu al ifi edimm un it y . The di stric t co urt g ran te d the off ic ers ’ m ot io ns in pa rt a ndde ni edth em in pa rt. Whil e th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he off ic ers were en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y forHazl et on ’s cla im s re la te d t o t he off ic ers ’ en try int o h er g arag e, th e co urt al so de ci de d t ha t t he off ic ers were n oten ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y as t o Hazl et on ’s cla im s o f un la wfu l arres t an d s ei zu re. Acco rd in g t o t he di st ric t co urt, th e ev id en ce as co ns tru edat s umm ary jud gm en t es tabl is he d t ha t t he off ic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre stHazl et on forth e m is de m ean oroff en se of r es is ti ng an of fic er wi th ou t v io le nc e, se e Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .02 , bu t d idno t es tabl is h tha t t he re The district cour

t’s order summarized the evidenc e in the summary judgme nt rec ord, so 1 we will not rec ite that evidenc e her e. I nstead, we will refe r to specif ic fa cts as nec essar

y for our analy sis. 2

Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 2 of 11were ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces th atwou ldjus ti fy th e warra nt le ss en try int o Hazl et on ’s ho m e. Fo ll owi ng fro m th e d et erm in at io n t ha t Haz le to n’s arres t was un la wfu l, the di st ric t co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t the for ce u se d b y th e o ffi cers in effe ctua ti ng th atarre stwas e xc es si ve . On ap pe al , th e o ffi cers arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g qu al ifi edimm

un it y , bo th be cau se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d t o ju st ify the ir pu rs ui t o f Hazl et onin to he r res id en ce an d b ecau se th e fo rce u se d b y th e o ffi cers in arre st in g Haz le to n was “ m in im al an d re as on ab le ,” no t ex ces si ve . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm

un it y , vi ewin g the fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov an t. See Drap er v . Reyno ld s, 3 69 F.3d12 70 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e an al y ze the se cla im s u nd er the fam il ia r two -s te p qua li fie d i m m un it y an al y si s tha t, tho ug h n otrequi redforall cas es , is ne ve rth el es s “ of te n app ro pr ia te .” See Edward s v . Sha nl ey , 66 6 F .3d12 89 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . The fi rs t s te p i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the de fen da nt ’s con du ct

“ am ou nt edto a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Lewis v. Ci ty of W es t Pa lm Beac h, 5 61 F.3 d 1 28 8, 1 29 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . If so , th e se co ndst ep is to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e ri gh t v io la te d was cle arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th e v io la ti on .” Id . (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Hop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 39 , 12 2 S . Ct. 3 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 3 of 1125 08 , 25 15 (20 02 ) (“ Fo r a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto be cle arl y est ab li sh ed , it s co nt ou rs m

us t b e su ffi ci en tl y

cle ar tha t a r eas on ab le off ic ia l wo ul d u nd ers ta ndth at wha t h e is do in g v io la te s t ha t ri gh t.” ( qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Fi rs t, the off

ic ers arg ue th atth ere was no cle arl y est ab li sh edFo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on be cau se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d t o ju st ify the ir pu rs ui t o f Hazl et onin to he r res id en ce. The y arg ue th atth is requi res su m m ary jud gm en t i n t he ir f

av oron he r un la wfu l s ei zu re an d a rres t cl ai m s. Th e o ffi cers po in t o utth atFlo rid a la w perm it s t he ho t p ur su itof afle ei ng m is de m ean an t, wh ere th e m is de m ean oris pu ni sh ab le by a j ai l s en te nc e, as is th e cas e wit h F la . Sta t. § 8 43 .02 he re. See Uly ss e v . Sta te , 89 9 S o. 2 d 1 23 3, 1 23 4 (F la . 3dDCA 20 05 ); Gas se t v . Sta te , 49 0 S o. 2 d 9 7, 9 8 (F la . 3dDCA 19 86 ). The off ic ers are co rrec t t ha t Fl or id a la w perm it s the ho t p ur su itof ape rs on su sp ect edof v io la ti ng Fla . Sta t. § 84 3.0 2 u nd er ce rta in cir cu m st an ces . Howev er, th ei r arg um en t d oe s n otgo far i n a dd res si ng th e que st io n b efo re u s: whet he r th ere was in de eda ho t p ur su itin th is cas e. Thatin qu iry is g ov ern edby the “ de ci si on s of th e U. S. Sup rem e Co urt, the Uni te d S ta te s C ou rt o f App eal s fo r th e Ele ve nt h Ci rcu it , andth e h ig he stco urt o f th e p ert in en t s ta te .” See M ars h v . But le r Cn ty., Ala., 2 68 F.3d10 14 , 10 32 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (enba nc ). W e th eref or e lo okto th atbo dy of la w inde ci di ng whet he r th e o ffi cers ’ co nduc t co nf orm edwith F ed eral 4 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 4 of 11Co ns ti tu ti on al requi rem en ts .

The co nt ro ll in g c as e law est ab li sh es th atwarran tl es s en try int o asu sp ect ’s ho m e is “pr es um

pt iv el y un reas on ab le ,” ab se ntco ns en t o r ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces . McC li sh v. Nu ge nt , 48 3 F .3d12 31 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Exi ge ntcir cu m st an ces ex is t “ whe n t he in ev it ab le de la y in ci de ntto ob ta in in g awarran t m us t g iv e way

to anurg en t n eedforimm ed ia te act io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram os , 93 3 F .2d96 8, 9 72 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (pe r curia m) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The “ ‘hotpu rs ui t’ of a fle ei ng su sp ect ” is am on g t he reco gn iz edsi tu at io ns in whi ch ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces m ay

ex is t. Un it edSta te s v . Bla sc o, 7 02 F.2d13 15 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . 2 Howev er, the ho t p ur su itdo ctrin e d oe s n otex cu se ev ery in st an ce wh ere of fic ers en te r a h om e to arre sta su sp ect . “ [H]ot p ur su itm ean s s om e so rt o f ch as e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . San ta na , 42 7 U.S. 3 8, 4 2– 43 , 96 S. Ct. 2 40 6, 2 41 0 (1 97 6) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t hi s co m m on -s en se li m it at io n t o t he ho t p ur su itdo ctrin e in W el sh v. Wisc on si n, 4 66 U.S. 74 0, 1 04 S. Ct . 20 91 (19 84 ), a cas e in vo lv in g awarran tl es s h om e en try by off ic ers to arre sta

The off icer s do not argue that other fac tors contributingto exi g ent circ umstances, suc h 2 as “da ng er of flig ht or esca

pe; dang er of

harm to police of

fice rs or the g ener al public; [or] risk of loss, destruction, remova l, or conc ealment of evidenc e,” w ere prese nt when they arr ested Hazleton. United States v. Santa, 236 F .3d 662, 669 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted). 5 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 5 of 11su sp ectfordri vi ng whi le in to xi cat ed . Id. at74 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 94 .

The fact s o f W el sh he lp il lu st rat e it s h ol di ng . “ [A]fter ch an gi ng sp eed s an d ve eri ng fro m

si de to si de , th e [s us pe ct ’s] car ev en tu al ly swerv edoff th e ro adan d cam e to a st op in anop enfie ld .” Id . at 7 42 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 93 . The s us pe ct de cl in edth e as si st an ce o f a p as se r-b y an d wal ke d away

fro m th e sc en e. Id . at 7 42 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 94 . The p as se r-b y co nt act edth e p ol ic e. The o ffi cers so on arri ve d, in te rv ie wedth e p as se r-b y , andch eck edth e reg is tra ti on of t he no w-ab an do ne d c ar. Id . Real iz in g tha t the car’s o wne r li ve d wi th in walk in g d is tanc e, th e o ffi cers went to th e su sp ect ’s ho m e, en te redth e h ou se , andarre st edth e su sp ect eddri ve r. Id. at 74 2– 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 94 . The Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t ho se cir cu m st an ces were i ns uf fic ie ntto jus ti fy en try int o t he su sp ect ’s ho m e. Id . at 7 54 , 10 4 S . Ct. at21 00 . In re jecti ng th e St at e’s at te m

ptto rel y onth e h otpu rs ui t d oc tri ne , th e Co urt h el d t ha t “ th e cl ai m of h otpu rs ui t i s u nc on vi nc in g [wh ere] th ere was no im m ed ia te or co nt in uo us pu rs ui t o f th e [s us pe ct ] fro m th e sc en e o f a cri m e.” Id . at 7 53 , 10 4 S . Ct . at 2 10 0. App lying th is pri nc ip le to ou r fact s as co ns tru edat s umm ary jud gm en t i s rel at iv el y st rai gh tfo rward . The rec or d e vi de nc e sh ows th atth e o ffi cers paus ed th ei r pu rs ui t an d d ire ct edth ei r at te nt io n e ls ewh ere f orsev eral min ut es aft er 6 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 6 of 11Hazl et on ranin to he r ho m e. Offic er Tri ni da d re m ov edHazl et on ’s so n fr om th e ga rag e, th enrad io edforba ck -up. He the n b rie fedOffic er Si ko s, wh o h adjus t arri ve d o n t he sce ne . Next , th e o ffi cers sen t a n ei gh bo r in to th e h ou se to try and co nv in ce Haz le to n t o c om e o ut si de . Onl y aft er tha t ef

fo rt f ai le d d idth e o ffi cers ap pr oa chth e d oo rs te p t o t he in te rio r of th e h om e an d t he m se lv es co nf ro nt Hazl et on , who was ju stin si de th e d oo r an d s pe ak in g o n t he tel ep ho ne . Whe n Hazl et on ag ai n re fu se d t o c om e o ut si de , th e o ffi cers en te redhe r ho m e an d a rres te d he r. Viewi ng th is ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hazl et on , we con cl ud e th at“ th ere was no imm ed ia te or c on ti nu ou s p ur su it ” o f Hazl et on . W el sh , 46 6 U.S. at75 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 99 . The off ic ers als o a rg ue th atth ey

are en ti tl edimm

un it y in li gh t o f Uni te d St at es v. Sa nt an a, 42 7 U.S. 3 8, 9 6 S . Ct. 2 40 6 (1 97 6) . They arg ue th atSan ta na st an ds forth e p ro po si ti on th at“ a su sp ectm ay no t d efea t an arre stwhi ch ha s b een se t i n m ot io n i n apubl ic pl ace . . . by the ex pe di en t o f es cap in g t o apri va te pl ace.” Id . at 4 3, 9 6 S . Ct. at24 10 . ButSan ta nado es no t s ta ndforth e id ea tha t, an y ti m e of fic ers fir stid en ti fy

a su sp ectin a publ ic pl ace, t he y th erea fte r ha ve li cen se to en te r th e su sp ect ’s ho m e. In st ead , San ta narel ie s o n t he re h av in g b een “ so m e so rt of a ch as e.” Id . at 4 2– 43 , 96 S. Ct. at24 10 . Andth e cas e’s ho ld in g i s s im pl y th at

“ [t]he factth atth e p ur su it. . . en de d a lm os t as so on as i t b eg andi d n otren de r it 7 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 7 of 11an y

les s a ‘ho t p ur su it ’ su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify the warran tl es s en try . . . .” Id. Deci de d e ig hty ears aft er Sa nt an a, W el sh canbe stbe vi ewedas c la rif y in g tha t

“ so m e so rt o f ch as e,” i d. at42 –4 3, 9 6 S . Ct. at24 10 , ent ai ls th e “ im m ed ia te or co nt in uo us pu rs ui t” of asu sp ect . W el sh , 46 6 U.S. at75 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 99 . Hav in g c on cl ud edth atsu ch an“ im m ed ia te or c on ti nu ou s p ur su it ” was no t pr es en t h ere, i d., we h ol d t ha t t he off ic ers were n otin ho t p ur su itof Ha zl et on whe n the y

en te redhe r ho m e wit ho uta warra ntto arre sthe r fo r a m is de m ean or of fen se . Accep ti ng th e fac ts as Ha zl et onha s al le ge d the m , th eref or e, sh e h as es tabl is he d t ha t t he off

ic ers ’ co nduc t am ou nt edto a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Hav in g re ach edth is co nc lu si on , we m us t n ex t d eci de whet he r th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n was cle arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f Hazl et on ’s arres t i n May 200 7. Sa idan ot he r way , we m us t i nqui re wh ethe r, atth atti m e, en try int o a su sp ect edm is de m ean an t’s h om e to effec t h er warr an tl es s arres t, wh enth e o ffi cers fir stpaus e th ei r pu rs ui t fo r se ve ral m in ut es , was cl earl y est ab li sh edas f

al li ng ou ts id e th e h otpu rs ui t ex cep ti on to th e warra ntrequi rem en t. Tho ug h “ ou r ci rcu it us es two m etho ds to de te rm in e whe th er a re as on ab le off ic er wo ul d kno w th athi s co nduc t i s u nc on st itut io na l,” Edward s, 6 66 F.3dat 1 29 6 (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d al te rat io ns om it te d) , we nee d o nl y us e th e fi rs t m etho d h ere. Th atm etho d re qu ire s us to de te rm in e whe th er, atth e ti m e o f th e v io la ti on , th e rel ev an t ca se law ap pl ie d 8 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 8 of 11th e le ga l p rin ci pl e to “ a co nc ret e fac tu al co nt ex t” su ch th atitwou ldha ve be en

ob vi ou s t o areas on ab le go ve rn m en t ac to r in each of t he off ic ers ’ po si ti on s t ha t h is act io ns vi ol at edfed eral law. Had le y v. Gu it ie rrez , 52 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W el sh pro vi de s t hi s “ co nc ret e fac tu al co nt ex t.” Id . In Wels h, t he Supr em e Co urt u ne qu iv oc al ly rejectedth e co nt en ti on th atth e arr es ti ng off ic ers were i n h ot pu rs ui t o f th e su sp ect , wher e th e o ffi cers arri ve d a t t he sce ne aft er the su sp ectha d le ft a ndth enpro ceed edto arre sthi m at h is ho m e. W el sh , 46 6 U.S. at75 3, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 09 9. Th atho ld in g p la cedth e o ffi cers on no ti ce tha t t he ho t p ur su it do ctrin e requi res an“ imm ed ia te or c on ti nu ou s p ur su itof [ a su sp ect ] fro m th e sc en e o f a cri m e.” Welsh , 46 6 U.S. at75 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 99 . As a res ul t, i t 3 wou ldha ve be enob vi ou s t o areas on ab le go ve rn m en t ac to r in th e o ffi cers ’ po si ti on s t ha t, i n t he ab se nc e o f an“ imm ed ia te or c on ti nu ou s p ur su it ,” id ., no ho t pu rs ui t ex is te d t o ju st ify the warran tl es s arres t o f Hazl et on in he r ho m e. See Had le y , 52 6 F .3dat 1 33 3. Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n c on cl ud in g t ha t, o n t he The Supreme Court has since r elied on that holdingto disti nguish W elsh from situations 3 in which exigent c ircumstance s were found to exist . See B righam City , UT v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 406, 126 S. Ct . 1943, 1949 (2006) ( noting that, in Welsh, “the ‘only potential emerg ency ’ confr onting the of

fice rs was the need to pr eser ve evide nce ( i.e., the suspec t’s blood alcohol level)” ). 9

Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 9 of 11fact s as co ns tru edat s umm ary jud gm en t, the ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on di d

no t ap pl y , pre cl ud in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n Haz le to n’s u nl awfu l s ei zu re an d arre stcla im s. Seco nd , th e o ffi cers arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g s umm ary jud gm en t i n t he ir f

av orwith re sp ectto Hazl et on ’s exc es si ve for ce cl ai m . They co nt en d t ha t t he y

“us edon ly tha t fo rce n eces sa ry (m in orph y si cal for ce, the ap pl ic at io n o f pe pp er s pr ay an d t he ap pl ic at io ns [si c] of h an dc uf fs ) . . . to t ak e Ms . Hazl et on in to cu st od y .” The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y ob se rv edth at , “ if a n a rres ti ng off ic er d oe s n ot ha ve th e ri gh t t o m ak e anarre st , he d oe s n otha ve th e ri gh t t o u se an y de gr ee o f fo rce i n m ak in g tha t arres t.” Ba sh ir v . Roc kd al e Co un ty, 44 5 F .3d13 23 , 13 32 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; s ee al so Ziv oji no vi chv. Barn er, 5 25 F.3d10 59 , 10 71 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ ev ende m in im is for ce wi ll vi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i f th e o ffi cer i s n oten ti tl edto arre stor d et ai n t he su sp ect ”). The off ic ers ackno wled ge us in g “ m in or ph y si cal for ce” a ndpe pp er s pr ay in arre st in g M s. Hazl et on . There is , th us , no do ub t t ha t t he off ic ers de pl oyed atlea st“ de m in im is fo rce” in effe ctua ti ng a warra nt le ss arres t t ha t we h av e al read y sai d i s, fo r ou r pu rp os es he re, unl awfu l. Ziv oji no vi ch , 52 5 F .3dat 1 07 1. As a res ul t, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t hi s 10 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 10 of 11is su e. Hav in g c on cl ud edth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in it s t reat m en t o f th e

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces an d e xc es si ve for ce i ss ue s, we af firm it s d en ia l o f qu al ifi ed imm un it y , andth eref

or e o f su m

m ary jud gm en t t o t he off ic ers . AFFIRMED.

11 Case: 11-15418 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 Page: 11 of 11