1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BOB NICHOLS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20-cv-261-AW-MAF

JARED MILLER, in his official capacity as 

SHERIFF, WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, 

and SCOTT POWELL, in his individual

capacity,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT SHERIFF’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES

Comes now, Defendant, Jared Miller, in his official capacity as Sheriff, 

Wakulla County, Florida (hereinafter, “Sheriff”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, files this Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.

2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.

3. Admitted.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

4. Unknown, therefore denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 12
2

PARTIES

5. Unknown, therefore denied.

6. Admitted.

7. Admitted.

STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS

8. Unknown, therefore denied.

9. Denied.

10. Denied.

11. Unknown, therefore denied.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14. Denied.

15. Denied.

16. Denied.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

20. Admitted that Defendant Powell stated in the affidavit that the lower 

unit of the motor on Plaintiff’s boar was freshly painted; denied as to the remainder.

21. Denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 12
3

22. Admitted that Defendant Powell stated in the affidavit that the torque 

tab was missing from the lower unit. Denied as to the remainder.

23. Admitted that Defendant Powell stated in the affidavit that Plaintiff said 

that the lower unit had never been replaced. Denied as to the remainder.

24. Unknown, therefore denied.

25. Denied.

26. Denied.

27. Denied as characterized.

28. Denied.

29. Unknown, therefore denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied as characterized.

32. Denied.

33. Admitted that Defendant Powell spoke to Plaintiff regarding the motor, 

Plaintiff’s purchases, and Plaintiff’s whereabouts. Admitted that Defendant Powell 

called Plaintiff. Denied as to the remainder.

34. Denied.

35. Admitted that Defendant Powell spoke with an individual named Ben 

Mullins by phone. Admitted that this phone call was conducted in the presence of 

Sergeant Eddie Wester and Detective Richard Moon. Admitted that during this 

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 12
4

phone call Defendant Powell asked Mullins about a boat motor. Denied as to the 

remainder.

36. Admitted that on April 14, 2017, Defendant Powell placed a phone call 

to Plaintiff. Admitted that on April 14, 2017, Defendant Powell made contact with 

the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office regarding the boat. Denied as to the remainder.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Admitted.

40. Admitted that on April 17, 2017, Defendant Powell requested the boat 

taken to the Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office maintenance facility to remove the 

lower unit. Denied as to the remainder.

41. Denied.

42. Denied.

43. Admitted that Defendant Powell spoke with Scott Hug during the 

course of his investigation. Denied as to the remainder.

44. Denied.

45. Denied.

46. Unknown, therefore denied.

47. Denied.

48. Denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 4 of 12
5

49. Unknown, therefore denied.

50. Denied.

51. Admitted that the Plaintiff was arrested. Denied as to the remainder.

52. Denied.

53. Denied.

54. Denied.

55. Admitted that a Nolle Prosequi was filed on October 24, 2018, by the 

Assistant State Attorney. Unknown, therefore denied as to the remainder.

56. Unknown, therefore denied.

57. Denied.

58. Unknown, therefore denied.

COUNT I – COMMON LAW FALSE IMPRISONMENT/ARREST

(against Defendant POWELL)

59. – 65. The allegations of this Count are not directed at the Sheriff and 

will therefore not be addressed herein. To the extent that any allegations in this Count 

attempt to assert liability against the Sheriff, those allegations are denied in their 

entirety.

COUNT II – COMMON LAW FALSE IMPRISONMENT/ARREST

(against Defendant SHERIFF)

66. The Sheriff hereby incorporates and realleges his foregoing responses 

to Paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 5 of 12
6

67. Denied.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Denied.

71. Denied.

72. Denied.

COUNT III – FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION –

UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE

(against Defendant POWELL)

73. – 79. The allegations of this Count are not directed at the Sheriff and 

will therefore not be addressed herein. To the extent that any allegations in this Count 

attempt to assert liability against the Sheriff, those allegations are denied in their 

entirety.

COUNT IV – FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION –

UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE

(against Defendant SHERIFF)

80. The Sheriff hereby incorporates and realleges his foregoing responses 

to Paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.

81. Denied.

82. Denied.

83. Denied.

84. Denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 6 of 12
7

85. Denied.

86. Denied.

87. Denied.

COUNT V – FALSE ARREST BROUGHT UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Against Defendant SHERIFF)

88. The Sheriff hereby incorporates and realleges his foregoing responses 

to Paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully set forth herein.

89. Denied.

90. Denied.

91. Denied.

92. Denied.

93. Denied.

94. Denied.

95. Denied.

96. Denied.

97. Denied.

98. Denied.

99. Denied.

100. Denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 7 of 12
8

COUNT VI – FALSE ARREST BROUGHT UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(against Defendant POWELL)

101. – 106. The allegations of this Count are not directed at the Sheriff and 

will therefore not be addressed herein. To the extent that any allegations in this Count 

attempt to assert liability against the Sheriff, those allegations are denied in their 

entirety.

COUNT VII – COMMON LAW MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

(against Defendant POWELL)

107. – 112. The allegations of this Count are not directed at the Sheriff and 

will therefore not be addressed herein. To the extent that any allegations in this Count 

attempt to assert liability against the Sheriff, those allegations are denied in their 

entirety.

DEFENSES

1. There are insufficient allegations in the complaint and no evidence to 

support the existence of any custom, policy or practice created or maintained by 

these Defendants which, in and of itself, deprived the Decedent of any civil or 

constitutional right or which was causally related to any unconstitutional conduct of 

City employees or agents, which was the legal cause of damage to the Decedent.

2. Probable cause for arrest existed at the time Defendant Powell applied 

for an arrest warrant.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 8 of 12
9

3. The arrest of Plaintiff was pursuant to a validly issued warrant, which 

was reviewed and signed by Judge; thus, the arrest of the Plaintiff cannot be false.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as Plaintiff’s 

bare allegations cannot be enough to support such a claim.

4. Powell had probable cause to seize the Plaintiff’s property and such 

seizure was reasonable based upon the circumstances; thus, as to Count III, Plaintiff 

has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon which relief can be granted. 

5. The seizure of Plaintiff’s property by Powell was lawful, as the facts 

known to Powell at the time of the seizure created a reasonable suspicion that the 

property was associated with criminal activity.

6. As to any state law claims, the Sheriff’s acts, or failure thereof, are 

planning level governmental functions which are immune from judgment under the 

doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Sheriff was not negligent, nor was there any 

wrongful act or omission by the Sheriff which would subject it to a waiver of

sovereign immunity under Section 768.28, Fla. Stat.

7. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Powell, as an 

employee of the Sheriff, conducted an imperfect criminal investigation, such is not 

a sufficient basis for recovery in an action for false arrest. Thus, Plaintiff has failed 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 9 of 12
10

8. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold the Sheriff liable for the actions 

of is employees pursuant to the legal theories of respondeat superior, vicarious 

liability, or joint/several liability, such cannot be the basis for liable for a claim 

brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

9. The Second Amended Complaint fails to set forth the existence of any 

custom, policy or practice, created or maintained by the Sheriff which in and of itself 

deprived the Plaintiff of any constitutional rights, or which was causally related to 

any unconstitutional conduct of the Sheriff’s employees or agents which was legal 

cause of damage to Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10. There was no actual notice or a history of widespread abuse which 

existed to put the Sheriff on notice of any potential or actual civil or constitutional 

violations.

11. The Plaintiff cannot show that the Sheriff caused any constitutional 

violation or officially sanctioned or ordered any action which resulted in any 

constitutional violation. 

12. As to any state law claims, the Sheriff is subject to the liability limits 

set forth in Section 768.28(5), Fla. Stat.

13. A claim of inadequate training or supervision under § 1983 will not lie 

absent a showing of deliberate indifference by the supervisor or agency involved. 

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 10 of 12
11

The Sheriff received no notice of the need to train or supervise in the area of 

appropriate methods of investigating crimes.

14. Some of Plaintiff’s injuries or damages were the result of actions of 

third parties and/or their employees or representatives, for which the Sheriff owes 

no legal duty to the Plaintiff, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida in Fabre

v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).

15. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his own damages and, by his failure, has 

contributed to the extent of the injuries that he claims and, accordingly, his damages 

should be barred or reduced in proportion to said failure.

16. The seizure of Plaintiff’s property by Powell was lawful, as the facts 

known to Powell at the time of the seizure created a reasonable suspicion that the 

property was associated with criminal activity.

17. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the notice requirements of Section

768.28(6), Fla. Stat.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Sheriff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 11 of 12
12

Dated this 9th day of September, 2020.

WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ ALICIA D. CAROTHERS

ALICIA D. CAROTHERS

Florida Bar No. 099339

TIMOTHY G. WARNER

Florida Bar No. 0346829

501 West 11th Street, Suite A

Panama City, Florida 32401

Phone No. (850) 784-7772

pleadings@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendant Sheriff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was filed this 9th day of 

September 2020, via CM/ECF which will serve notice to all counsel of record. 

/s/ ALICIA D. CAROTHERS

ALICIA D. CAROTHERS

Florida Bar No. 099339

Case 4:20-cv-00261-AW-MAF Document 23 Filed 09/09/20 Page 12 of 12