[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 73 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 05 26 -J ES-DNF KENNET H C. HENDRICKS, W ILLIAM C. KERRIGAN, ADRIAN OLIVARES, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us SHERIFF , COLLIER COUNTY, FLO RIDA, DONALD C. HUNTER, in di vi du al ly, an d a s t he form er Sh eri ff o f Co ll ie r Co un ty, THOMAS STORRAR, J R., in di vi du al ly, an d a s t he form er u nd ers he rif f of Co ll ie r Co un ty, RALPH SCALA, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y with t he Co ll ie r Co un ty Sheri ff, ANDREW

DREW , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a Dep ut y with t he Co ll ie r Co un ty Sheri ff, etal.,

Defen da nt s- App el le es , SCOTT SALLEY, etal., Defen da nt s.

Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 1 of 16__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 5, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la nt s Ken ne th C. Hend ric ks , W il li am C. Kerri ga n, an d Adria n Oli va res (co ll ect iv el y

“ App el la nt s” ) ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on two of th ree s ep arat e m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e si x Ap pe ll ees : fo rm er Sh eri ff Do na ldC. Hun te r, fo rm er Un de rs he rif f Tho m as Sto rrarJr., an d Dep ut y Sh eri ffs Ral ph Scal a, And rew Drew, J oh n Hu rle y , andJo se Lop ez. Fo r th e reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof t he App el le es . I. Fac ts Late Satur da y

ni gh t, Ma y

3, 2 00 8, Ap pe ll an ts th rew a p arty at Adria n Oli va res ’s ho m e fo r hi s b irt hd ay . App el la nt s al le ge th ataft er 2 :0 0 a .m . th e n ex t m orni ng , fou r y ou ng m enwho are n o l on ge r pa rti es to th is act io n, Ty le r Mu ll in s,

2 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 2 of 16Ja rradHorn e, Je ff St orrar, an d B rian C al y or e, arri ve d a t the party. O li va res an d 1 Hen dr ic ks ask edth em

to lea ve be cau se th ey

were dru nkan d l ou d, s o t he y lef t. So on aft er l eav in g, M ul li ns returne d a lo ne , exp la in in g t ha t the re was a fi gh t dur in g whi chHorn e b ro ke hi s h an d a ndan ot he r pe rs on , Cody James Marti n, p ul le d a kn ife
. Acco rd in g t o t he fou r Dep ut y Sh eri ff-Ap pe ll ees , Cody James Marti n a nd Nich ol as Ch es le y

Alt een , (he rei na fte r “ th e v ic ti m s” ) cal le d t he Sh eri ff’s Dep artm en t t o re po rt t ha t fo urwhi te m al es in a bl ackSubu rb anatt ack edth em . The vi ct im s re cal le d p artof t he Subu rb an ’s Flo rid a li cen se pl at e, “ X44 .” The vi ct im s re po rte d t ha t the fou r at ta ck ers ha d aweap on an d tha t the y tri edto rob th em . Depu ti es Scal a, Drew, an d Hu rle y sea rch edforth e Subu rb anan d fo un d i t i n Oli va res ’s dri ve way , wher e Mu ll in s p ark editup on returni ng . The Subu rb an ’s tag nu m be r, X44 -TN9, co rres po nd edwith t he pa rti al pl at e num be r pr ov id edby the vi ct im s. Th e Subu rb anwas re gi st eredto Mu ll in s, wh o s to odou ts id e Oli va res ’s ho us e n ear h is car t al ki ng with Ap pe ll an ts whenth e d ep ut ie s arriv ed . Depu ty Lop ez al so arri ve d a t Ol iv ares ’s ho us e atso m e p oi ntaft er the ot he r de pu ti es sp ot te d t he Subu rb an .

J eff Storrar is the son of Appellee former Under sheriff Thomas Storrar J r. J eff is also the 1 g odson of Appellee former Sheriff D onald C. Hunter.

3 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 3 of 16App el le e Dep ut y Hurl ey th enbro ug htth e v ic ti m s t o Ol iv ares ’s ho us e whe re he co nduc te d a“ sh ow- up ,” sp ot li gh ti ng Mu ll in s an d Ap pe ll an ts whi le ask in g t he vi ct im s i f Mu ll in s an d Ap pe ll an ts were the on es who co nf ro nt edth em . Bot h vi ct im s p os it iv el y

id en ti fie d M ul li ns an d Ap pe ll an ts . App el la nt s al le ge th at Mu ll in s i m

m ed ia te ly adm it te d h is in vo lv em en t an d a le rte d t he de pu ti es th atth ree ot he rs —J arra d Ho rn e, Je ff St orrar, an d B rian C al y or e—we re ac tu al ly the ot he r pe rp etrat or s, an d t ha t Ap pe ll an ts were n ot . App el la nt s fu rth er al le ge th atth e de pu ti es refu se d t o l is te n t o M ul li ns ’s st ory or Ap pe ll an ts ’ al ib i, b utin st ead
arre st edApp el la nt s al on g wi th Mu ll in s. Ap pe ll an ts were jai le d fr om earl y Sund ay m orni ng un ti l the y

were re le as edonbo ndat v ari ou s t im es lat e Mo nd ay ni gh t an d earl y Tues day m orni ng . At s om e p oi ntaft er Ap pe ll an ts were d et ai ne d, Ap pe ll ee fo rm er Un de rs he rif f Tho m as Sto rrarJr. l earn edth athi s s on , Jef f, was i n aco nf

ro nt at io n i nv ol vi ng th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t. J eff St orrar c la im s t ha t h e b eg anto tel l h is fathe r ab ou t h is in vo lv em en t i n t he in ci de nt an d th atot he rs were m is ta ke nl y id en ti fie d a nd
wro ng ly accus ed . Howev er, J eff c la im s tha t h is fathe r st op pe d h im sh ort an d advi se d h im

to sp eakto anatt orne y . Tho m as Sto rrarJr. cl ai m s t ha t J eff on lyto ld hi m th athe was i nv ol ve d i n a n i nc id en t i nv ol vi ng th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t, an d th athe advi se d h is so n t o t al k t o a n a tt orne y . Tho m as Sto rrar Jr. t ol d fo rm er 4 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 4 of 16Sh eri ff Hu nt er tha t h is so n was in vo lv edin anin ci de nt , bu t d idno t re la y an y in fo rm at io n t o Hu nt er ab ou t m is ta ke n a rres ts . Hun te r ad vi se d S to rrarto di ss oc ia te hi m se lf f ro m an y in ve st ig at io n i nv ol vi ng Jef f. App el la nt s wer e ch arg edwith “ fel on y ba tt ery” and“ro bb ery - arm edwith ot he r weap on ,” bu t wer e n ev er i nd ic te d o r pr os ecu te d. So onaft er the arre st s, the Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t p ub li sh edit s b i-we ek ly bul le ti n i n t he co m m un it y , whi ch in cl ud edApp el la nt s’ nam es an d p ic tu res , st at in g t ha t Ap pe ll an ts were i nv ol ve d i n a ro bb ery. The Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on clo se d i n J un e 2 00 8, b utin Aug us t, af

te r Hen dr ic ks ’s att orne y

fil eda co m

pl ai nt , th e Fl or id a Dep artm en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t as ke d t he Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t t o i nv es ti ga te furth er. Inth e reo pe ne d i nv es ti ga ti on , Jef f St orrar, wh o was no t p rev io us ly int erv ie wed , to lda de pu ty tha t Ap pe ll an ts were n otin vo lv edinth e Ma y 4, 2 00 8 i nc id en t. Lack in g su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro se cu te , th e st at e dro pp edth e ch arg es ag ai ns t Hen dr ic ks
an d Kerrig anin Sep te m

be r 20 08 an d a ga in stOli va res in Octo be r 20 08 . Pro ced ur al His to ry InAug us t 2 01 0, Ap pe ll an ts fil eda co m pl ai ntin Flo rid a st at e co urt ag ai ns t App el le es an d s ev eral ot he r de fen dant s, al le gi ng vario us civ il rig ht s v io la ti on s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a s wel l as st at e la w to rts . The ca se was re m ov edto fed eral co urt wh ere, o ve r th e sp anof ay ear, the co m pl ai ntwas a m en de d t hr ee 5 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 5 of 16ti m es an d s ev eral de fen da nt s an d c la im s wer e d is m is se d. Th e rem ai ni ng

de fen da nt s fi le d t hr ee m ot io ns for su m m ary jud gm en t: on e b y

Sh eri ff Kev in Ram bo sk , who is no t anApp el le e, on e b y App el le es form er Sh eri ff Hu nt er an d fo rm er Un de rs he rif

f St orrar, an d o ne by App el le es Depu ti es Scal a, Drew, Hur le y , an d Lo pe z. Inth ei r res po ns es to th e m ot io ns , App el la nt s dro pp edsev eral of the ir cl ai m s. In a si ng le Mem or an du m an d Ord er, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r th e m ov an ts on th e rem ai ni ng cla im s, b utitde ni edsu m m ary jud gm en t t o Lo pe z o n C ou ntXI, a cla im forfal si fy in g fa ct s u nd er § 19 83 . Upo n App el la nt s’ m ot io n, t he co urt en te redfin al jud gm en t u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 4( b) so th atApp el la nt s co ul d s eekou r rev ie w of s umm ary jud gm en t be fo re p ro se cu ti ng th e rem ai ni ng cla im ag ai ns t Lo pe z. App el la nt s t he n fi le d t hi s 2 ti m el y ap pe al
. II .

“ W e rev ie wde no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s d is po si ti onof asu m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n . . . , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Dur ru th y v. Pas to r , 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 84 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A m ov an t i s en ti tl edto su m m ary

“ W h en an action prese nts more than one claim for relief — whether as a clai m , 2 counter claim, crossc laim, or third-par ty claim — or when multipl e parties are involved, the court may direc t entry

of a f inal judgme nt as to one or more , but fewe r than a ll, claims or parties only if the cour t expressly

deter mines that there is no just rea son for de lay .” F E D . R. C IV . P. 54(b).

6 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 6 of 16jud gm en t “ if [ he ] sh ows th atth ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d [h e] is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” F E D . R. C IV . P. 56 (a). We
co ns id er the fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Man n v . Tas er Int ’l, In c. , 58 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

II I. App el la nt s ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof De pu ti es Scal a, Drew, Hur le y , andLop ez o n C ou nt s IV an d VI (f al se arre stun de r § 1 98 3 a ndfal se arre stun de r st at e la w), an d i n fa vo r of form er Sh eri ff Hun te r an d fo rm er Un de rs he rif f St orrar o n C ou nt s II an d XII (fal se im pr is on m en t un de r § 1 98 3 a ndco ns pi racy un de r § 1 98 3) . W e fi rs t an al y ze the App el la nt s’ fal se arre stcla im s ag ai ns t the Depu ty Sheri ffs , andth enth e fal se im pr is on m en t an d
co ns pi racy clai m s ag ai ns t the form er Sh eri ff an d Un de rs he rif f. A. Cou nts IV a nd VI (fa ls e a rres t unde r § 19 83 an d st at e la w ) App el la nt s al le ge th atth e fo urDepu ty Sheri ffs fal se ly arres te d t he m in vi ol at io n o f § 1 98 3 a ndFlo rid a la w. App el la nt s h av e th e ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zures . Se e S ko p v . Cit y o f At la nt a, Ga
. , 48 5 F .3d 11 30 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). If, ho wev er, the de pu ti es ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre stApp el lant s, the n t he sei zu res were re as on ab le , andApp el la nt s h av e n o c la im fo r fal se arre stun de r § 1 98 3, se e id
. , or Fl or id a st at e la w, se e Lew is v. Mor ga n , 79 7 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 7 of 16So . 3d92 6, 9 28 –2 9 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 12 ). “ Pro babl e cau se is de fin edas f act s an d c irc um st an ces su ffi ci en t t o warran t a p ru de ntm anin be li ev in g t ha t [a ] su sp ect . . . comm it te d o r was co m m it ti ng anoff

en se .” Gri de r v. Cit

y o f Au bu rn , Ala
. , 61 8 F.3 d 1 24 0, 1 25 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot in g Ger st ei n v . Pugh , 42 0 U.S. 1 03 , 11 1, 9 5 S. Ct . 85 4, 8 62 (19 75 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . An o ffi cer i s g en eral ly
en ti tl edto rel y

on , am on g o th er thi ng s, a v ic ti m ’s cri m in al co m pl ai ntan d id en ti fic at io n i n a“ sh ow- up ” as supp ort fo r pr ob ab le cau se . L.S .T., Inc . v. Cro w , 49 F.3d67 9, 6 84 –8 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (pe r cu ria m). Eve n i f th e d ep ut ie s l ack edpro babl e cau se , th ey are s ti ll en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y if t he y ha d a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre st . Se e Dur ru th y , 35 1 F .3dat 10 89 . “ Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts whenanoff ic er re as on ab ly cou ldha ve be li ev edth atpro babl e cau se ex is te d, i n l ig htof t he in fo rm at io n t he off ic er po ss es se d.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Office rs ha ve arg uabl e pr ob ab le cau se ev enwhen ev ery el em en t o f a cri m e can no t b e p ro ve n. Gri de r , 61 8 F .3dat 1 25 7. App el la nt s ar gu e th atat t he ti m e o f th ei r arre st , th ere was ne it he r pr ob ab le
cau se no r arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arres t. Fi rs t, Ap pe ll an ts co nt en d t ha t atth e ti m e o f th e arr es ts , th e d ep ut ie s o nl y kn ew th atth e two vi ct im s p os it iv el y id en ti fie d Ap pe ll an ts an d M ul li ns in a sh ow- up . They as se rt t ha t thi s s ho w-up 8 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 8 of 16id en ti fic at io n a lo ne was i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh actua l o r arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se be cau se no ne of t he de pu ti es in te rv ie wedth e v ic ti m s ab ou t the rep orte d c rimes pr io r to m ak in g arres ts , andth us , no ne of t he de pu ti es were ce rta in ab ou t wh at actua ll y oc cu rredat t he ti m e o f th e arr es ts . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t i t was reas on ab le forth e d ep uty sh eri ffs to rel y

on th e v ic ti m s’ sp eci fic de sc rip ti on of th e Subu rb an , th e g en eral de sc rip ti on of the fou r m enin vo lv edinth e in ci de nt , th e lo cat io n o f th e Subu rb anat Ol iv ares ’s ho us e, an d m os t i m po rta nt ly, th e vi ct im s’ po si ti ve id en ti fic at io n o f App el la nt s atth e sh ow- up . Se e Cr ow , 49 F.3d at68 4– 85 . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e d ep ut ie s h adpro babl e cau se , or a t l eas t arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se . App el la nt s n ex t co nt en d t ha t the de pu ti es ha d n o e vi de nc e subs ta nt ia ti ng th e two cri m es ch arg ed : “ ro bb ery - arm edwith o th er weap on ,” an d “ fel on y ba tt ery. ” Se e F LA . S T A T . §§ 81 2.1 3, 7 84 .04 1( 1) . App el la nt s p oi ntou t tha t M ul li ns an d t he th ree o th ers actua ll y

with h im di d n ottak e an y

m on ey or p ro pe rty from

th e vi ct im s, an d t he re was no ev id en ce o f th e requi si te weap on us eddu rin g t he all eg ed
ro bb ery. Lik ewis e, App el la nt s ar gu e th atth ere was no ev id en ce o f a s eri ou s h arm do ne to eit he r vi ct im

th atwou ldris e to th e le ve l o f fel on y ba tt ery. Howev er, App el la nt s’ arg um en ts m ak e n o d iff eren ce t o apro babl e cau se an al y si s. An of fic er’s “ subjec ti ve rel ia nc e o n a n o ffen se forwhi ch no pro babl e cau se ex is ts ” 9 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 9 of 16do es no t m ak e anarre stfau lt y wher e th ere i s ac tu al ly pro babl e cau se to supp ort so m e o th er o ffen se . Lee v . Ferr ar o , 28 4 F .3d11 88 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. S au nder s , 47 6 F .2d5, 7 (5t h C ir. 1 97 3) ). In t hi s in st an ce, the po si ti ve sh ow- up id en ti fic at io n a ndth e v ic ti m s’ cal l t o the Sh eri ff’s Dep artm en t wo ul d h av e st il l g iv enth e d ep ut ie s ac tu al or a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stforles s s eri ou s o ffen se s. Last ly, App el la nt s as se rt t ha t the de pu ti es ’ in ve st ig at io n a t the sce ne of t he
arre stwas c on st itut io na ll y de fic ie ntin so far a s t he de pu ti es ig no redav ai labl e ev id en ce. App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e o ffi cers fai le d t o i nt erv ie w othe rs who ha d be enpre se ntat Ol iv ares ’s ho m e, in cl ud in g Ol iv ares ’s bro th er wh o was st il l i ns id e, who co ul d h av e v eri fie d t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ne ve r le ft t he pa rty with Mu ll in s. Mu ll in s al le ge dl y vo lunt eere d t he na m es of t he th ree o th er p eo pl e who were ac tu al ly w it h hi m when th e v ic ti m s wer e co nf ro nt ed , y etth e o ffi cers ig no redMu ll in s an d d id
no t as k fo r m or e in fo rm at io n. Ci ti ng Ki ng sl an d v . Cit

y o f Mi ami , 38 2 F .3d12 20 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) , App el la nt s urg e u s t o h ol d t ha t b ecau se th ere i s d oubtas t o whe th er the de pu ti es co nduc te d ath or ou gh in ve st ig at io n a t the ti m e o f th e arr es t, su m m ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te on th e fal se arre stcla im s. In Ki ng sl an d , we rev ers 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 law
en fo rcem en t o ffi cers who all eg ed ly m anuf actur edev id en ce t o s up po rt p ro babl e 10 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 10 of 16cau se , fai le d t o c on du cta reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n, an d i gn or edcert ai n fa ct s

wit hi n t he ir kno wled ge . Id
. at12 28 –3 1. Bu t Ki ng sl an d is di st in gu is habl e fro m th e in st an t ca se . In Ki ng

sl an d , th e actua l o r arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stwas ba se d s ol el y

up on th e d efen da ntoff

ic ers ’ te st im on y

ag ai ns t the arre st ee-p la in ti ff. Inth is cas e, ho wev er, the off ic ers ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre stth atwas n ot frau du le nt ly obt ai ne d a ndth ataro se in de pe nd en tl y of t he ir o wn o bs erv at io ns — i.e. , th e v ic ti m s’ po si ti ve id en ti fic at io n o f App el la nt s as th ei r at ta ck ers . Fo r al l the se reas on s, we co nc lu de th atApp el la nt s’ arg um en ts on th e fal se arre stcla im s ar e witho utm eri t, an d we a ffi rm th 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

App el le es Scal a, Drew, Hur le y , andLop ez. B. Cou nts II an d XII (fa ls e impris on m ent a nd co ns pi ra cy under § 19 83 ) Fal se Impr is on men t App el la nt s al le ge th atApp el le es form er Sh eri ff Hu nt er an d fo rm er Und ers he rif

f St orrar fa ls el y

im pr is on edth em

an d c on sp ire d wi th on e an ot he r to de pr iv e App el lant s o f th ei r ci vi l ri gh ts . To subs ta nt ia te th ei r fal se im pr is on m en t cl ai m , App el la nt s m

us t s ho w th atth ey

were u nl awfu ll y

de ta in edan d d ep riv edof th ei r li be rty, agai ns t the ir wi ll , un de r ci rcu m st an ces th atwere u nr eas on ab le or un warra nt ed
. Se e Ma th is v. Co at s , 24 So . 3d12 84 , 12 89 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 11 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 11 of 1620 10 ). Furth erm or e, a fal se im pr is on m en t cl ai m

bro ug htun de r § 1 98 3 re qu ire s pr oo f th atApp el le es were d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t t o t he de pr iv at io n o f App el la nt s’ du e p ro ces s ri gh ts . Se e Ca nn on v. Mac on Cn ty . , 1 F.3 d 1 55 8, 1 56 3 (1 1t h C ir. 19 93 ). App el la nt s m

us t s ho w th atHun te r an d S to rrarkn ew orsh ou ldha ve kn own , durin g Ap pe ll an ts ’ de te nt io n, t ha t Ap pe ll an ts were wro ng fu ll y de ta in ed , an d t ha t Hu nt er an d S to rrarwere ea ch de li be rat el y in di ffer en t t o Ap pe ll an ts ’ rig ht s to rel eas e. Se e id
. App el la nt s p os itth atHun te r an d S to rrareach kn ew th atApp el la nt s wer e wro ng fu ll y

de ta in edbe cau se Sto rrar ’s so n, J eff, wh o a dm it s t o b ei ng with M ul li ns whe n the vi ct im s wer e co nf ro nt ed , to ldhi s fa th er ab ou t the m is ta ke n a rres ts so on aft er the in ci de nt . Sto rrarde ni es th atJef f to ldhi m an yth in g e xc ep t tha t J eff was in vo lv edinanin ci de ntwhi ch th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t was in ve st ig at in g. St orrar al so de ni es th atform er Sh eri ff Hu nt er kne w abo utApp el la nt s’ m is ta ke n a rres t an d de te nt io n b ecau se Sto rrarha d n o i nf orm at io n abo utApp el la nt s t o s ha re wi th Hun te r. App el la nt s thu s h av e n o e vi de nc e th atHun te r was aware o f th e u nl awfu l de te nt io n. Ev enso , App el la nt s ar gu e th atwe sh ou ldreas on ab ly infe r th atHun te r kn ew ab ou t Ap pe ll an ts ’ si tu at io n b ecau se Hun te r ad vi se d S to rrar to rem ov e hi m se lf f ro m an y in vo lv em en t i n h is so n’s ca se . Hun te r’s in st ru ct io n t o S to rrarto rem ov e h im se lf f

ro m Jef f’s in ve st ig at io n i s s im

pl y co ns is te ntwith wh atSto rrar 12 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 12 of 16sa y s h e to ldHun te r, i.e. , th atJef f was in vo lv edin anin ci de nt . Con se qu en tl y , we do no t ac cep t Ap pe ll an ts ’ in fere nc e as a reas on ab le on e. W itho utm or e ev id en ce, we can no t i nf

er tha t Hunt er kne w abo utth e App el lant s’ wron gf ul de te nt io n. Th us , App el la nt s ca nn otpro ve th atHun te r ha d t he requi si te subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of a nd de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t owa rdth e App el lant s’ fal se im pr is on m en t. Howev er, J eff St orrar’s t es ti m on y ab ou t wh athe to ldhi s fa th er cr eat es a ge nu in e d is pu te as t o wh atTho m as Sto rrar Jr. ac tu al ly kne w. Ackn owl ed gi ng th is
un res ol ve d i ss ue of f

act , th e d is tri ctco urt n ev erthe le ss grant edSto rraran d Hu nt er su m m ary jud gm en t o n the fal se im pr is on m en t cl ai m

be cau se itdo ub te d t ha t the rel at iv el y sh ort dur at io n o f co nf

in em en t am ou nt edto a co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n of du e p ro ces s. Se e Bak

er v. McCo ll an , 44 3 U.S. 1 37 , 14 4– 45 , 99 S. Ct. 2 68 9, 26 94 –9 5 (1 97 9) (fi nd in g t ha t a 3 -d ay de pr iv at io n o f li be rty resu lt in g fr om m is ta ke n i de nt it y

di d n otgi ve ris e to a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im be cau se th e p la in ti ff
was arre st edan d d et ai ne d o n ava li d warran t). Al te rn at iv el y , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t ev enif St orrar v io la te d Ap pe ll an ts ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, b ot h Hunt er an d S to rrarwere en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . To re cei ve th e p ro te ct io n o f qu al ifi edimm un it y fro m li ab il it y , Sto rrar ’s co nduc t m

us t n othave vi ol at ed“ cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l rig ht s o f whi cha reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own .” Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 13 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 13 of 1655 5 U.S. 2 23 , 23 1, 1 29 S. Ct. 8 08 , 81 5 (2 00 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d) . Thu s, qua li fie d i m m un it y “pr ot ect [s ] fro m

su itall bu t the pl ai nl y in co m pe te ntor o ne who is kn owi ng ly vio la ti ng th e fed eral law.” Lee , 28 4 F .3dat 11 94 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If Sto rraris en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y , he “ m

us t fi rs t p ro ve th athe was a ct in g wi th inth e sc op e o f hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y when th e al le ge dl y

wron gf ul act s o ccu rred .” Id . If Sto rrar ha d d is cret io na ry

au th or it y , th enth e b ur de n s hi fts to App el lant s t o s ho w th atth ei r im pr is on m en t co ns ti tu te d avi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , andth atth e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htwas c le arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th ei r de te nt io n. Se e Pea rs on , 55 5 U.S. at23 2, 1 29 S. Ct. at81 5– 16 . Ass um in g t ha t J eff t ol d h is fathe r th atth ree i nn oc en t p eo pl e were m is ta ke nl y

id en ti fie d, arres te d, an d jai le d, Th om as Sto rrarJr. was act in g wi th in hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y when he ch os e n otto in ve st ig at e th atcla im an y furth er. The bu rd enth ensh ift s t o Ap pe ll an ts to sh ow a c on st itut io na l v io la ti on of acle arl y es tabl is he d ri gh t. Ass um in g ar gu en do th atApp el lant s’ det en ti on co ns ti tu te d fa ls e im pr is on m en t u nd er § 19 83 , th ere was an d i s n o c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw re qu iri ng a sh eri ff o r un de rs he rif

f to in ve st ig at e ev ery le adall eg in g wro ng fu l d et en ti on . The pe rs on al , fam il ia l d im en si on of the in st an t fa ct s an d a ll eg at io ns ( i.e. , th atth e ex cu lp at ory

in fo rm at io n p ur

po rte dl y cam e fro m

Sto rrar ’s so n a ndHun te r’s 14 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 14 of 16go ds on ) do es no t ch an ge th e o ut co m e o f ou r an al y si s. Th om as Sto rrarJr. d idno t

vi ol at e cl earl y

est ab li sh edlaw b ecau se he was u nd er n o dut y to be li ev e an d in ve st ig at e h is so n’s cl ai m s. Insu m m ary, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Ap pe ll ees Hun te r an d S to rrarbe cau se (1) th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atHun te r kn ew ab ou t Ap pe ll an ts ’ un lawfu l d et en ti on , (2) th e rel at iv el y sh ort d et en ti on di d
no t am ou ntto a de ni al of s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s, an d (3 ) ev enif t he re was a de pr iv at io n o f du e p ro ces s, Ap pe ll ees are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity fro m su it
. Co ns pi ra cy u nder

§ 1 98 3 As m en ti on ed su

pr a , App el la nt s ar e u nabl e to sh ow t ha t Hu nt er was aware of App el lant s’ wron gf

ul de te nt io n. With ou t awa ren es s, Hu nt er co ul d n otha ve co ns pi redwith S to rrar . Bai le y v. Bd. o f Cn ty . Comm'r

s o f Alac hu a C

nt y., Fla
. , 95 6 F.2 d 1 11 2, 1 12 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (“ th e li nc hp in forco ns pi racy is ag reem en t, whi chpre supp os es co m

m un ic at io n” ). Alt ern at iv el y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ct co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m for§ 1 98 3 c on sp ira cy

fai ls be cau se App el la nt s ca nn otsh ow t ha t the y su ffer eda harm

th atam ou nt s t o ade pr iv at io n o f
subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s. Se e Gri de r , 61 8 F .3dat 1 26 0 (“ A pl ai nt iff m ay st at e a § 19 83 cla im

forco ns pi racy to v io la te co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s b y sh owi ng a co ns pi racy

15 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 15 of 16ex is te d th at

res ul te d i n the ac tu al

de ni al of so me un de rl

yi ng co ns ti tu ti on al

ri gh t .”) (em ph as is ad de d)
. IV. Whi le we reg retth atApp el la nt s wer e m is take nl y id en ti fie d, arres te d, de ta in ed , andch arg ed , andwhi le we do no t d oubtth atApp el la nt s h av e su ffer ed ha rm as aco ns eque nc e o f th is m is ta ke , App el la nt s h av e n otsh ownth atth e d is tri ct co urt erredin gra nt in g Ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he fal se arre st , fal se im

pr is on m en t, an d c on sp ira cy cla im s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

16 Case: 12-11736 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 16 of 16