FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 27 , 2006 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. 06- 11208 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 7 0 7 - C V - C MA B E N T L E Y K I L L M O N , J A R E D A L D R I D G E , P A U L B A M E , S T E F A N O B L O C H , S T E V E N D I A M O N D , e t a l., P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , v ersu s T H E C I T Y O F M I A M I , A m u n ic ip a l e n tity , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , M . N E I L L Y , O f

f ic e r , N . M A N D E R A , B r o w a r d S h e r if f 's O f f ic e , L L O Y D B I N G H A M , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hree offi ce rs of the B row ar d C ou nty S heri ff , M anfr eth N ei l l y, N ancy M a n d e r a , a n d L lo y d B in g h a m ( th e O f f ic e r s ) , ap p e a l th e d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n to di s m i s s ba s e d on qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . B e nt l e y K i l l m on, C a l e b S e l m a n, a nd L a w r e nc e W i na w e r( the P r ot e s t e r s ) c om pl a i n tha tthe y w e r e w r ongf ul l y a rr e s t e d by th e O f f ic e r s , w ith o u t p r o b ab le c au s e , in v io la tio n o f th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. W e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D W e t ake a s true the fa ctual al l egat i on s of the thi rd am ended com pl ai nt . In l at e N o v em b er 2 0 0 3 , K i l l m o n , S el m an , an d W i n aw er trav el ed t o M i am i t o p ro t est the ec on om i c pol i ci es of F re e T ra de A re a of the A m er i ca s, the m em ber c ou ntri es o f w h ic h w e r e m e e tin g in M ia m i. O n N o v e m b e r2 0 , th e y p a r tic ip a te d in ala w f u l, p e rm itte d r a lly a n d m a r c h o r g a n iz e d b y th e A F L - C I O . L a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic ia ls ha d pr ohi bi t e d a l l c ha r t e r e d bus e s f r om pi c ki ng up the i rpa s s e nge r s a tthe a m p h ith e a te rw h e r e th e m a r c h e n d e d . A ft ercom pl et i ng the m ar ch, P rot es t erB ent l eyK i l l m on , a 71-ye arol d ret i re e a n d K o r e a n w a rv e te r a n , a n d P r o te s te rC a le b S e lm a n , as tu d e n t a t F lo r id aS ta te U ni vers i ty, att em pt ed t o fi nd thei r buses for the re turn tri p h om e. P rot es t er3

L a w r e nc e W i na w e r , a n e m pl oy e e of the a s s oc i a t i on of

r e t i r e e s t o w hi c h K i l l m on be l onge d, a c c om pa ni e d K i l l m on. K i l l m on a nd W i na w e ra s ke d al i e ut e na ntf r om the M i a m i - D a de P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nti n w hi c h di r e c t i on the y s houl d di s pe r s e a nd w e r e to ld to p r o c e e d d o w n as e t o f r a ilr o a d tr a c k s . A f t e rf ol l ow i ng the l i e ut e na nt ’ s i ns truc t i ons , the P r ot e s t e r s w e r e a rr e s t e d. W h e n th e y w e r e a rr e s te d , K illm o n , S e lm a n , a n d W in a w e rw e r e m o r e th a n am ile f r o m th e a m p h ith e a te r , w a lk in g p e a c e f u lly in ag r o u p o f

1 5 to 2 0 p e o p le . A c ont i nge ntof

pol i c e of

f i c e r s f r om the B r ow a r d S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e c om m a nde d by C ap ta in J o h n B r o o k s s to p p e d th e g r o u p a n d a rb itr a r ily a rr e s te d s o m e o f its m e m b e r s w h ile le ttin g o th e r s g o f r e e . F or tw o o f the three arre st s, the charges w er e dropp ed. K i l l m on w as arre st ed b y O f f ic e rN e illy a n d c h a r g e d w ith e n g a g in g in a n u n la w f u l a s s e m b ly , b u t a ll char ges a gai nsthi m w er e di sm i ss ed athi s i ni t i al bo nd hear i ng . S el m an w as a rr e s t e d by O f

f i c e rB i ngha m a nd pl e a de d no c ont e s tt o am i s de m e a nora f t e rbe i ng to ld th a t if

h e h a d n o m o n e y f

o rb a il, h e c o u ld b e h e ld in ja il f o ru p to th r e e w e e k s . W in a w e rw a s a rr e s te d b y O f f ic e rM a n d e r aa n d c h a r g e d w ith d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t, w h ic h w a s r e d u c e d to ac h a r g e o f f a ilu r e to o b e y b e f

o r e b e in g d is m is s e d n o lle p r o s e q u i. T h e P r o te s te r s , a lo n g w ith s e v e r a l o th e rP la in tif f s a lle g e d ly s u b

je c te d to4

w arra nt l es s m i sdem ea no r arr es t s, fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstnu m er ou s m un i ci pal ent i t i es , pu bl i c off

i ci al s, and l aw enforc em entoffi ce rs . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the O f f i c e r s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s ba s e d on the de f e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T he di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed the ar gu m entof the O ff i ce rs thatprob abl e c ause exi st ed be c aus e the P r ot e s t e r s w e r e tr e s pa s s i ng upon the r a i l r oa d tr a c ks i n vi ol a t i on of F l or i daS t a tut e s e c t i on 810. 09. I the l d tha ttw o of the e l e m e nt s of

tr e s pa s s i ng un der s ec t i on 81 0. 09 –ent er i ng the prop erty w i l l ful l y and do i ng so despi t e not i ce agai nstent er i ng –d i d n otexi stun der the fa ct s a l l eged i n the com pl ai nt . T he court al so re j ec t ed the ar gu m entthatthe O ff i ce rs had p robabl e c ause because they w er e f ol l ow i ng or de r s . I ts t a t e d tha tthi s C our tha s be e n ge ne r a l l y hos t i l e t o the

“ fol l ow i ng orders ” def

ense and n ot ed thatw e have cr edi t ed the defense on l y w hen there w er e i nd ependentre as on s the offi ce r c ou l d h ave bel i eved a s ea rc h o r s ei zure w a s r e a s o n ab le . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW A n or de rde ny i ng am ot i on t o di s m i s s i s r e vi e w e d de novo, “ a c c e pt i ng the f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e a n d d r a w in g a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s in the pl ai nt i ff’ s f

avor. ” D al ry m pl e v. R eno, 33 4 F . 3d 99 1, 99 4 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). th I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T w o i s s ue s a r e pr e s e nt e d f orourc ons i de r a t i on: w he the rw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on5

t o revi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss base d o n q ual i fi ed im m u n ity , a n d , if

s o , w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly d e n ie d th e m o tio n to d is m is s . W e a n s w e rb o th q u e s tio n s in th e a f f irm a tiv e . E a c h is s u e is d is c u s s e d in turn. A . T

his C our t H as J ur is di c t i on T

o R e v i e w the D e ni al

of the O f f i c e rs ’Q ual i

f i e d I m m uni t y D e f e ns e B e c aus e the D e n i a l Tu rn s o n a Q u e s t i o n o

f La w. T o o verc om e adefe nse of qual i fi ed i m m un i ty, a pl ai nt i ff m ustes t abl i sh that the de f e nda ntvi ol a t e d ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ghttha tw a s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d w he n the vi ol a t i on oc c urr e d. S auc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 201, 121 S . C t . 2151, 2156 (2 0 0 1 ). W h eth er a co m p l ai n tal l eg es a v i o l at i o n o f a cl earl y est ab l i sh ed ri g h ti s a q u e s tio n o f

la w . W illia m s v . A lab a m aS ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Si e g e r tv . Gi l l e y , 5 0 0 U. S. 2 2 6 , 2 3 2 , 1 1 1 S. Ct . 1 7 8 9 , 1 7 9 3 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . To the e xt e nttha t“ adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of ac l a i m of

qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . . . turns on a n i s s ue of

l a w , [ tha tde ni a l ] i s a n appe a l abl e ‘ f i na l de c i s i on’ w i thi n the m e a ni ng of 28 U . S . C . § 1291 notw i ths t a ndi ng the abs e nc e of af i na l j udgm e nt . ” M i t c he l l v. F o r s y th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 2 8 0 6 , 2 8 1 7 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to rev i ew a d en i al o f q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty th attu rn s o n w h eth er th e co m p l ai n tal l eg es a v io la tio n o f

ac le a r ly e s tab lis h e d r ig h t. T he P r ot e s t e r s ’ a r gum e nttha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on f a i l s . W e ha ve6

j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s appe a l , be c aus e the de ni a l of the O f f i c e r s ’ de f

e ns e of q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty tu rn s o n w h eth er th e co m p l ai n to f th e P ro t est ers al l eg es a vi ol at i on of a c l ea rl y e st abl i shed ri gh t . T he com pl ai ntal l eges thatthe O ff i ce rs w e r e or de r e d by the i rc om m a nde rt o a rr e s tthe P r ot e s t e r s w ho w e r e w a l ki ng pe a c e f ul l y on the r a i l r oa d tr a c ks a s i ns truc t e d by othe rpol i c e of f i c e r s . T he O f f i c e r s a r gue tha tthe s e a l l e ga t i ons r e qui r e af i ndi ng of pr obabl e c aus e , a nd the P r o te s te r s r e s p o n d th a t th e c o m p la in t a d e q u a te ly a lle g e s a n a rr e s t w ith o u t p r o b ab le cause. T he di sput e then d oes notturn o n the suff i ci encyof the evi dence, w hi ch w ou l d forecl ose our j uri sdi ct i on , K och v . R ug g, 22 1 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 96 (11th C i r. 2000) ; i ns t e a d, thi s appe a l turns on w he the rthe f a c t s a l l e ge d i n the c om pl a i nt es t abl i sh thatthe P rot es t er s w er e a rr es t ed w i tho utprob abl e c ause .

B . T h e D istri ct

C o u rt P ro p erl y D en i ed th e O f f i cers’ D ef ense of Q ua l i f i ed Im m un i t

y. T h e e v a lu a tio n o f

ad e f e n s e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity in v o lv e s th r e e s te p s . A pu bl i c off

i ci al w ho as se rt s adefe nse of qual i fi ed i m m un i ty “ m ustfi rs tprov e that he w a s a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of hi s di s c r e t i ona ry author i ty w he n the w r ongf ul ac t s occ urre d. ” L ee v. F erraro, 28 4 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 94 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). T he bu rden then shi ft s t o the pl ai nt i ff s, w ho m ustes t abl i sh thatthe defendant s’ cond uct vi ol a t e d the C ons t i tut i on. H ope v. P e l z e r , 536 U . S . 730, 736, 122 S . C t . 2508, 25 13 (200 2). In the fi nal st ep, the pl ai nt i ff s m ustes t abl i sh thatthe const i tut i on al7

r i ghtw a s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d w he n the vi ol a t i on oc c urr e d. S auc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . a t201. T hi s appe a l turns on the s e c ond s t e p. T h e O f f ic e r s d o n o t d is p u te th a t it w a s c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d , u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, th a t th e a rr e s ts o f th e P r o te s te r s h a d to b e s u p p o r te d b y p r o b ab le c au s e . T h e d is p u te is w h e th e rth e r e le v a n t le v e l o f p r o b ab le c au s e e x is te d . A po l i ce offi ce r c harged w i th u nl aw ful arre sti s e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty i f there w a s a r guabl e pr obabl e c aus e t o m a ke the a rr e s t . D urruthy v. P a s t or , 351 F . 3d 10 80 , 10 89 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). “ A rguabl e probabl e c ause exi st s w hen an o ff i ce r r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve be l i e ve d tha tpr obabl e c aus e e xi s t e d, i n l i ghtof the i nform at i on the offi ce r posse ss ed. ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot e om i tt ed). T he O ff i ce rs arg u e th atth ey h ad arg u ab l e p ro b ab l e cau se, an d th e P ro t est ers d en y i t . W e m u st r e s o lv e th a t d is p u te b y r e v ie w in g th e a lle g a tio n s o f th e c o m p la in t. T aki ng i t s a l l egat i on s a s true, the com pl ai ntes t abl i shes thatthe P rot es t er s w er e a rr es t ed w i tho utar gu abl e probabl e c ause . K i l l m on , S el m an, and W i naw er w er e a rr es t ed ho urs a ft erand m ore than a m i l e a w ayfr om w here the m ar ch had e nde d. T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge s tha tne i the rthe a rr e s t i ng of f i c e r s norC apt a i n B r ooks s a w th e P r o t e s t e r s v i o l a t e a n y l a w. T h e O f f ic e r s m a k e tw o a r g u m e n ts ab o u t th e e x is te n c e o f a r g u ab le p r o b ab le cau se, b u tb o th arg u m en t s fai l . F i rst , th ey assertth atth ey w ere fo l l o w i n g o rd ers,8

a n d th a t th e “f

e llo w - o f f ic e r ” ru le , F la . S ta t. A n n . § 9 0 1 .1 8 , a llo w s a n o f f ic e rto r e ly o n th e p r o b ab le c au s e d e te rm in a tio n o f a n o th e r . T h e y a r g u e th a t it w a s r e a s o n ab le for the O ff

i ce rs t o ass um e thatthei r c om m andi ng offi ce r, C apt ai n B rook s, had p ro b ab l e cau se t o o rd er th e arrest of the P ro t est ers. T h e p r o b le m w ith th is f ir s t a r g u m e n t is th a t th e O f f ic e r s w e r e w ith C ap ta in B r ooks the e nt i r e t i m e . T he y s a w w ha the s a w . W he n a n of f i c e ri s pr e s e ntw i th a fe l l ow offi ce r and bo th o bserve the sa m e c ou rs e of e vent s, i ti s unrea sonabl e f or an o f f ic e rto r e ly u p o n th e f

e llo w - o f f ic e rru le to d e te rm in e th a t p r o b ab le c au s e e x is ts . F l ori da court s app l y the fe l l ow -off i ce r rul e w hen the arre st i ng offi ce r w as abse ntfor asi gn i fi cantpo rt i on of the event s thatgave ri se t o p robabl e c ause . S ee , e . g. , V oorhe e s v. S t a t e , 699 S o. 2d 602 ( F l a . 1997) ; S t a t e v. B oa tm a n, 901 S o. 2d 2 2 2 2 0 5 ( Fl a . 2 d D CA 2 0 0 5 ) ; H u e b n e rv . St a t e , 7 3 1 So . 2 d 4 0 ( Fl a . 4 th D CA 1999) ; S t a t e v. E l dr i dge , 565 S o. 2d 787 ( F l a . 2d D C A 1990) . I ti s r e a s onabl e f or a n of f i c e ri n tha ts i tua t i on t o r e l y upon hi s f e l l ow of f i c e r ’ s j udgm e ntabout p r o b ab le c au s e . T h e ru le typ ic a lly r e q u ir e s th a t th e f e llo w o f f ic e ra c tu a lly co m m u n i cat e t o th e arresti n g o ffi cer th e b asi s fo r p ro b ab l e cau se. S ee V o o rh ees, 6 9 9 So . 2 d a t6 0 9 ( “ Th e f e l l o w o f f i c e rru l e a l l o w s a n a rr e s t i n g o f f i c e rt o a s s u me p r o b ab le c au s e to a rr e s t as u s p e c t f ro m i n f o rm a t i o n su

p p l i ed b y o th er o f f i cers .” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . W h e n th e a rr e s tin g o f f ic e ro b s e rv e d th e s a m e e v e n ts a s h is9

fe l l ow offi ce r, the fe l l ow -off i ce r rul e does notappl y. A s the di stri ctcourt a c know l e dge d a nd w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d, “ the ‘ j us tf ol l ow i ng or de r s ’ de f

e ns e ha s not occupi ed a r es pect ed po si t i on i n o ur j uri sprudence, and o ff i ce rs i n such cas es m ay be he l d l i abl e unde r§ 1983 i f the r e i s a‘ r e a s on w hy a ny of the m s houl d que s t i on th e v a lid ity o f

th a t o r d e r .’” O ’R o u rk e v . H a y e s , 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 1 0 n .5 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). S eco n d , th e O ffi cers arg u e th at , b ecau se w al k i n g o n rai l ro ad track s i s a c r i m i na l tr e s pa s s unde rF l or i dal a w , a r guabl e pr obabl e c aus e e xi s t e d t o a rr e s tthe P r ot e s t e r s . T hi s a r gum e nta l s o f a i l s . A s the di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d, the c om pl a i nt a l l e ge s the abs e nc e of

a tl e a s tone e l e m e ntof

the of f e ns e of tr e s pa s s a s de f

i ne d by F l ori da l aw –thata per son “ w i l l ful l y e nt er [] up on or re m ai n[] i n any prop erty other than a structure or c on veya nce. ” F l a. S t at . A nn . § 8 10 . 09 (1)( a) . T he P rot es t er s al l ege thatthey w er e di re ct ed, even “ herded, ” ont o the ra i l road tra cks by pol i ce o f f ic e r s . T h e y a ls o a lle g e th a t th e la w e n f o r c e m e n t o p e r a tio n th a t d a y w a s h ig h ly coordi nat ed. Iti s r ea sonabl e t o i nferthatthe O ff i ce rs and thei r c om m ander w er e a w a r e tha tthe di s pe r s i ng pr ot e s t e r s ha d be e n di r e c t e d ont o the r a i l r oa d tr a c ks by othe rpol i c e of

f i c e r s , w hi c h m e a ns tha tthe O f f i c e r s s houl d ha ve know n tha tthe P rot es t er s w er e noton the tra cks w i l l ful l y. T he com pl ai ntadequat el y a l l eges that th e P r o te s te r s w e r e a rr e s te d in v io la tio n o f th e irc le a r ly e s tab lis h e d F o u r th10

A m en d m en tri g h t s. W e d o n o tad d ress th e arg u m en to f th e O ffi cers, w h i ch i s rai sed fo r th e fi rst t i m e on appe a l , i n af

ootnot e of

the i ri ni t i a l br i e f

, tha tS e l m a n i s ba rr e d f r om com pl ai ni ng abou tthe abse nce of probable cause f or hi s arr es t , because he pl ea ded n o c o n t e s tt o h i s mi s d e me a n o rc h a r g e . Se e g e n e r a l l y H e c kv . H u mp h r e y , 5 1 2 U . S. 47 7, 11 4 S . C t . 23 64 (199 4). O rdi nari l y w e w i l l no taddres s an argum entthatw as n o t r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. O c h r a n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 1 7 F .3 d 4 9 5 , 5 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h is is s u e is b e s t a d d r e s s e d , in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e , b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I V . CONCL US I ON T h e d e n ia l o f

th e O f f ic e r s ’ m o tio n to d is m is s is AF F I RME D.