FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 30, 2010 J OHN L EY [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 31 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 01 23 3- CV-T-2 6- EAJ JOHNATHAN MARK RUIZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TOW N OF INDIAN SHORES, FLORIDA, a Fl or id a m

un ic ip al it y , et al ., Defen da nt s, JOHN P. WISEMAN, Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 30 , 20 10 )Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Defen da nt /Ap pe ll an t Po li ce Offi cer J oh n P . W is em an bri ng s t hi s in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al fro m

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b as edup on qu al ifi edimm un it y . Plai nt iff

/Ap pe ll ee J on Mark Ru iz su edW is em an , am on g o th ers , cla im in g t ha t Wise m an vi ol at edRu iz ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 b y fal se ly arres ti ng hi m

an d b y us in g ex ces si ve for ce dur in g t he arre st . Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdan d re ad in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we con cl ud e th at th e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t g ran ti ng W is em an qu al ifi edimm un it y on th e fal se arre stcla im

bu t p ro pe rly den ie d Wis em an qu al ifi edimm un it y on th e ex ces si ve fo rce c la im
. The reco rdcle arl y

de m on st rat es th at , at t he ve ry lea st , W is em an ha d arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stRu iz fora vi ol at io n o f th e Town of I nd ia n Sh or es ’ publ ic co ns um

pt io n o rd in an ce. The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth at“ [i]f an of fic er h as pro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atanin di vi du al ha s co m m it te d e ve n ave ry m in orcri m in al off

en se in hi s p res en ce, h e m ay , wit ho utvi ol at in g the Fo urth Am en dm en t, arres t t he off en de r.” Atwa te r v. C it

y o f La go Vis ta , 53 2 U.S. 3 18 ,

235 4, 1 21 S. Ct. 1 53 6, 1 55 7 (2 00 1) . Thatis th e si tu at io n we h av e h ere a ndth e

di st ric t co urt erredin no t g ran ti ng qu al ifi edimm un it y to W is em an on th is cla im
. Co nc ern in g the ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t th e Gra ha m fact or s s up po rte d R ui z. The p res en t ca se is on “ al l-f ou rs ” wit h o ur 1
rece ntde ci si on in Bro wn v. Cit y o f Hu nt sv il le , Ala ba ma , 60 8 F .3d72 4 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ), whe re we re ve rs edth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer o n an e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m be cau se hi s ac ti on s arg uabl y co ns ti tu te d e xc es si ve for ce. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f qu al ifi edimm un it y to W is em an on th e ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m . AFFIR MED in pa rt, R EVERSED in pa rt, a ndREMANDED.

Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S. C t. 1865, 1872 (1989). 1 3