FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 11, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14795 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 51 -C V -W L S -1 D A V I D J . P E T E R S O N , J R ., P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , ve r s us K E L L Y C R A W F O R D , in d iv id u a lly a n d in T h e ir O f f i c i a l C apa c i ty a s C a m pus P ol i c e P a tr ol m a n, S up ervi sor of C am pu s P ol i ce , and D i re ct or of S ec uri ty of D ou gh erty C ou nt y S choo l D i stri ct C a m p u s P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, S A M O L I V E R , in d iv id u a lly a n d in T h e ir O f f i c i a l C apa c i ty a s C a m pus P ol i c e P a tr ol m a n, S up ervi sor of C am pu s P ol i ce , and D i re ct or of S ec uri ty of D ou gh erty C ou nt y S choo l D i stri ct C a m p u s P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, W I L L I E G R I F F I N , in d iv id u a lly a n d in T h e ir O f f i c i a l C apa c i ty a s C a m pus P ol i c e P a tr ol m a n, S up ervi sor of C am pu s P ol i ce , and D i re ct or of S ec uri ty of D ou gh erty C ou nt y S choo l D i stri ct C a m p u s P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, S A L L Y W H A T L E Y , a s S upe r i nt e nde ntof D o u g h e r ty C o u n ty S c h o o l D is tr ic t, D efen d an t s,2

T Y W O N H E A T H , i n d i v i d u al l y an d i n h i s O ff i ci al C apac i ty a s aM em ber of the C i ty of A l b an y, G eo rg i a P o l i ce D ep artm en t , resp ect i v el y, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 11, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: In N ov em ber of 200 3, a f em al e hi gh sc ho ol stud entre po rt ed t o O ff i ce r T yw o n H eath , a p o l i ce o ffi cer fo r th e C i ty o f A l b an y, G eo rg i a, assi g n ed as a s c h o o l r e s o u r c e o f

f ic e r , th a t a b la c k m a le in a m a r o o n o rr e d c a rtr ie d to k id n ap h e r . T h e s tu d e n t d e s c r ib e d h e ra s s a ila n t a s b e in g in h is th ir tie s , s ix f e e t ta ll, h e a v ily bui l t , w i th s hor tha i ra nd a m us t a c he . K e l l y C r a w f or d, a D oughe r ty C ounty S c hool S y s t e m P ol i c e O f

f i c e r , l e a r ne d a boutthe i nc i de nta nd of f e r e d t o dr i ve the s tude nt t o s c hool f

ora pe r i od of

t i m e . I n D e c e m be rof

2003, C r a w f

or d a nd the s tude nt w e r e d r iv in g to th e s c h o o l w h e n a s m a ll r e d c a rp a s s e d b y . T h e s tu d e n t to ld C r a w f or d tha ts he be l i e ve d the dr i ve rm i ghtbe he ra s s a i l a nt . C r a w f or d s t oppe d the ve hi c l e , dr i ve n by D a vi d J . P e t e r s on, J r . W he n P e t e r s on e xi t e d the ve hi c l e , the s tude nti de nt i f

i e d hi m a s he ra tt a c ke r . C r a w f or d c a l l e d H e a th t o the s c e ne , w hoOthers were na med in the ac tion as well. All defendants initially appealed but later 1 dismiss ed their a

ppeals, with the e x ception of H eath. Th edis tric t c ourt

gra nte d H e ath’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry judgment o n th efe deral c laims 2 in his official ca

pacity, holding that Peter son did not show that defenda nts had promulg ated a

ny policies, customs, or proc edure s that cause d a constitutional violation. See M onnell v. De

pt. of Social Servic es , 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff does not appe al this judgment. 3 a r r iv e d , a r r e s te d P e te r s o n , h a n d c u f f e d h im a n d to o k h im to th e p o lic e s ta tio n . S ubs e que nt l y , P e t e r s on w a s i ndi c t e d by a gr a nd j ur y , tr i e d, a nd a c qui tt e d. P e t e r s on f

i l e d thi s a c t i on a ga i ns tK e l l y C r a w f or d a nd H e a th a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of

hi s f e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s a s w e l l a s the s t a t e l a w c l a i m s f or f a ls e a r r e s t a n d f

a ls e im p r is o n m e n t. P e te r s o n a lle g e d th a t C r a w f o r d ille g a lly 1 st op ped and det ai ned h i m , i n v i ol at i on of hi s F ou rth A m endm entri gh t s, because C ra w ford di d n othave autho ri ty t o st op and d et ai n o r a rr es ta pri vat e c i t i ze n o ver a m i l e a w a y f

r om the s c hool c a m pus . P e t e r s on a l s o a l l e ge d tha tH e a th a s s i s t e d i n the al l egedl y i l l egal det ent i on and arr es t . T he defendant s m ov ed for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d i n pa r ta nd de ni e d i n pa r tthe de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed C ra w ford’ s c l ai m of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty bec ause C ra w ford fa i l ed t o m ake the re qu i re d sho w i ng thathe w as act i n g w i th i n h i s d i scret i o n ary au th o ri ty w h en h e arrested P et erso n . T h e co u rtal so deni ed H ea th’ s c l ai m for qual i fi ed i m m un i ty, concl ud i ng thatbecause C ra w ford
w a s note nt i t l e d t o i m m uni ty on the f e de r a l c l a i m s , ne i the rw a s H e a th. N e xt , the 2T h equ e s ti o no f Craw f o rd ’ s immu

n it y w a s n o t a

p p e a le d an d is n o t b e f

o r eu s . We 3 e xpre ss n o opinion

on his e nti tlement to it . 4 d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d H e a th ’ s mo t i o n f o rs u mma r y j u d g me n to n th e s t a t e l a w c l a i ms of f a l s e a r r e s ta nd f

a l s e i m pr i s onm e nton the gr ounds of of f i c i a l i m m uni ty , hol di ng thatbecause C ra w ford had n o aut ho ri ty t o arr es tP et er son (and, there fore , nei ther d id H e a th ) , th e r e w a s n o p r o b a b le c a u s e f o rth e a r r e s t, th e r e b y p e r m ittin g a ju r y to in f e rth e m a lic e r e q u ir e d in G e o r g ia to n e g a te o f f ic ia l im m u n ity . H e a th r a is e s b o th of the s e i s s ue s on appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notrul e on H e a th’ s a l t e r na t i ve a r g u m e n t th a t h e is p r o te c te d b y s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity a g a in s t a n y s ta te la w c la im in hi s of f i c i a l c apa c i ty , butH e a th r a i s e s thi s i s s ue , t oo, on appe a l . W e r e vi e w the g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t de nov o. Mitc h e ll v . Fo rs y th , 47 2 U . S . 51 1 (19 85 ). 1 . Q u a l i f

i e d I mmu n i ty f

r o m th e Fe d e r a l Cl a i ms T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t H e a th w a s n o t e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity b e c a u s e C r a w f

o r d w a s n o t. T h is w a s e r r o r . F ir s t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c o r r e c tly

3 st at ed thatH ea th “ di d n otaddres s or m ake a ny other a rgum ent s f or sum m ary j ud gm enton the qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty def ense i ss ue ot her than t o argue that C ra w fo rd ’s sto p an d d eten ti o n an d all su b se q u en t acts a re sh ield ed b y C ra w fo rd ’s ent i t l em entt o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty. ” T hi s i s i nacc urat e. A re vi ew of H ea th’ s M em orandu m of L aw i n sup po rtof hi s s um m ary j ud gm entm ot i on pl ai nl y s ho w s thatH ea th argued t hathe w as ent i t l ed t o sum m ary5

ju d g m e n t in de

p e n de n tly o f

w h e th e rC r a w f

o r d w a s e n title d to s u c h im m u n ity . H eath ’ s m em o ran d u m st at es th ath e i s p ro t ect ed b y q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty “ b ecau se hi s a r r e s tof

P l a i nt i f f w a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y va l i d. ” [ R . 20, p. 4] . H i s m e m or a ndum f ur the rout l i ne s the thr e e r e qui s i t e pr ongs of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty : a c t i ons pur s ua nt t o t he pu bl i c off

i ci al ’ s di sc re t i on ary autho ri ty; re sul t i ng i n ei ther no con st i tut i on al
v io la tio n ; o ra v io la tio n th a t w a s e ith e rn o t c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d o rn o t r e a s o n a b ly know n t o the a c t ora tthe t i m e of hi s a c t i ons , c i t i ng G ray ex r el
. A l ex an der v
. B o s tic , 45 8 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11 C i r. 20 06 ). th W i th res pectt o t hese pron gs, H ea th p oi nt ed ou ti n h i s m em orandu m of l aw th a t P e te r s o n c o n c e d e d in h is p le a d in g s th a t H e a th w a s a c tin g p u r s u a n t to h is d is c r e tio n a r y a u th o r ity w h e n h e a r r e s te d P e te r s o n , c itin g P la in tif f’s R e s p o n s e to H ea th’ s M ot i on for S um m ary J ud gm ent[R . 25 , at6] . F urtherm ore, H ea th argued h e c o m m itte d n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n b e c a u s e h e d id , in f a c t, h a v e p r o b a b le cause t o arr es tP et er son b as ed up on the vi ct i m ’ s i dent i fi ca t i on of P et er son as her a s s a ila n t. F in a lly , h e p o in ts o u t th a t a D o u g h e r ty C o u n ty g r a n d ju r y s u b s e q u e n tly i nd i ct ed P et er son o n t he sa m e c harge for w hi ch H ea th arr es t ed hi m – cri m i nal a tte m p t to c o m m it k id n ap in g , a n d th a t o v e r1 0 0 y e a r s a g o th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld thatsuch i nd i ctm ent , foun d b y aprop ergrand j ury, shou l d b e a cc ept ed every w here thr ough the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s a tl e a s tpr i m af a c i e e vi de nc e of

the e xi s t e nc e ofPe ters on argue s th at H e ath i s n ot enti tle d toimmun ity be c a us ehelos t hi s a

bil ity to a rre st 4 Peterson as theresult of Cra wford’ s alleg edly

illegal stop. The district court appe ars to have concur red. We disagree . This appea rs to be a misapplication of the “fr uits of the poisonous tree ” doctrine. Fir st, the doctrine a pplies only

to bar the usein a criminal procee ding of evidenc e ill e g a lly se ize d. We c an f

ind no c a se , a

nd no neis c ite d tous , f

or theprop os iti on

that th is do c trineof

c rimin a l la

w b ars He ath f

ro m e xerc isinghis un dispute d a uth ority to a rre st Peters on

if he had probable c ause be causeCrawf ord misunderstood his authority . Fur thermore , even if

such 6 pr oba bl e c a us e , c i t i ng B eave rs v. H enke l , 1 9 4 U .S . 7 3 , 8 5 ( 1 9 0 4 ) . T h e s e a r g u m e n ts a r e s u f f ic ie n t to r a is e th e is s u e o f H e a th ’s e n title m e n t to qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i r r e s pe c t i ve of a ny e nt i t l e m e ntC r a w f

or d m a y ha ve ha d t o the s a m e de f e ns e . H e a th’ s e nt i t l e m e ntt o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s a n i nde pe nde nt q u e s t i o n f

r o m th a to f

C r a wf o r d ’ s , a n d i ti s t o th i s i s s u e we tu r n n o w. T he di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tbe c a us e “ the i ni t i a l s t op a nd de t e nt i on [ by C r a w f o r d ] w a s w ith o u t a n y o f f ic ia l a u th o r ity . . . th e a r r e s t w a s w ith o u t p r o b a b le c a u s e .” W e d is a g r e e . F ir s t o f a ll, w e d o n o t a g r e e th a t th e e x is te n c e o f p r o b a b le cause i s negat ed by a l ac k o f aut ho ri ty t o arr es t . T hese ar e s epar at e a nd un re l at ed q u e s tio n s . P r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e a c r im e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d m a y e x is t e v e n if the a uthor i ty t o a r r e s tthe pe rpe tr a t ordoe s not . T he r e f or e , the e xi s t e nc e of p r o b a b le c a u s e m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d s e p a r a te ly f r o m th e is s u e o f

a n y o n e ’s a u th o r ity to a rr e s t P e te r s o n . F ur the r m or e , e ve n i f

C r a w f or d di d notha ve the a uthor i ty t o a r r e s tP e t e r s on, i ti s c onc e de d tha tH e a th di d. O nc e he a r r i ve d upon the s c e ne , the que s t i on of wh e th e rth e r e wa s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s tP e t e r s o n a r o s e a n e w. 4a ca se existed, it would have no application in the conte x t of Heath’s claim to qualified

immun ity from c ivi l suit. In this c onte xt, w earec on c e rn e d o nly wi th whe ther H e ath re a so na bly believed that he had a

uthority to arre st Peterson. Heath was not required to cor rec tly resolve the iss ueof Crawf ord’ s a uth ority – s ub sta nti a lly dispute d in

there c ord –

in o rde r to re a so na

bly c on c ludethat hehad s uc h a uth ority, in depend e nt o f C ra wf ord’ s. Ev e n if wewereto a ssumethat a c tual prob a blec a us edid no t e xist toarre st Peters on , it 5 is undeniable that He ath had a rguable suspicion to ar

rest Peter son. See M

oore v. Gwinnett Co. , 96 7 F .2 d 1 49 5, 14 97 -9 8 ( 11 Cir . 1 99 2) (“ Th is i s e quivalent to a skingwh e ther a “ re a so na ble th of fi c e r[] in thesamec irc ums tanc e s and po sse ssingthesamekn ow le dg ea s th eDe fend ant[] c ould have be lieved that proba

ble ca use existed . . . . ”).

7 P r oba bl e c a us e “ t o a r r e s te xi s t s w he r e the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s w i thi n the col l ec t i ve kn ow l edge of the l aw enforce m entoffi ci al s, of w hi ch they had
r e a s o n a b ly tru s tw o r th y in f o r m a tio n , a r e s u f

f ic ie n t to c a u s e a p e r s o n o f r e a s o n a b le caut i on t o b el i eve thatan offe nse has been or i s bei ng com m i tt ed. ” M ad i w al e v . Sa vai ko , 1 1 7 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e th
c onc l ude tha tH e a th ha d s uc h pr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s tP e t e r s on. O n the da y of the a tt e m pt e d ki dnapi ng, the vi c t i m de s c r i be d the pe rpe tr a t ort o H e a th. O n the da y of the arre st , H ea th rec ei ved i nform at i on fr om C ra w ford and t he vi ct i m thatshe had i de nt i f i e d P e t e r s on a nd hi s c a r . H e a th t e s t i f i e d tha tthe pr e vi ous i de nt i f i c a t i on

“ pr e tty m uc h f

i t ” the s ubs e que nti de nt i f i c a t i on of

P e t e r s on. A f

t e rthe s t op, the
v ic tim p o s itiv e ly id e n tif ie d P e te r s o n a s h e ra s s a ila n t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t H e a th c e r t a i nl y ha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o a r r e s tP e t e r s on. 5 I n the pr e s e nc e of

pr oba bl e c a us e , the r e i s no c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on i n the a r r e s tof P e t e r s on. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c onc l us i on tha tH e a th w a s not8

e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty w a s e r r ora nd m us tbe r e ve r s e d. 2 . T h e S ta te L a w C la im s : O f f ic ia l I m m u n ity a n d S o v e r e ig n I m m u n ity H ea th i s e nt i t l ed t o o ff

i ci al i m m un i ty f

or perf orm ance of hi s off

i ci al fu n ct i o n s – su ch as arrest

– u n l ess h e act ed w i th actu al m al i ce o r i n t en tt o cau se in ju r y . G i lbe r t

v . R i c har ds on , 264 G a . 744, 452 S . E . 2d 476, 483 ( 1994) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tno of f i c i a l i m m uni ty c oul d a tt a c h t o H e a th’ s a c t i ons b e c a u s e P e te r s o n ’s a r r e s t w a s w ith o u t p r o b a b le c a u s e , th e r e b y p e r m ittin g a ju r y to i n fer m al i ce. B ecau se w e co n cl u d e th atth ere w as p ro b ab l e cau se t o arrest P e te r s o n , w e a ls o c o n c lu d e th a t h e is e n title d to o f f ic ia l im m u n ity w ith r e s p e c t to the st at e l aw cl ai m s. T here fore , the deni al of sum m ary j ud gm entas t o o ff i ci al i m m uni ty i s due t o be r e ve r s e d. F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t d is c u s s w h e th e rth e s u it a g a in s t H e a th in h is o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity is b a r r e d b y s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . B e c a u s e w e h o ld th a t H e a th is e n title d to o f

f ic ia l im m u n ity o n th e s ta te la w c la im s , w e n e e d n o t d is c u s s th is i ss ue ei ther. A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a s to H e a th ’s e n title m e n t to q u a l i f i e d i mmu n i ty o n th e f

e d e r a l c l a i ms a n d o f

f i c i a l i mmu n i ty o n th e s t a t e c l a i ms ag ai n sth i m are h ereb y R E V E R S E D .