[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 56 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 1- cv -0 05 21 -CAP

AMBER C . MAUGHON,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us
CITY OF COVINGTON, OFFIC ER KEVIN FULLE R, in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 28 , 20 13 )

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.
PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 12Pl ai nt iff Am be r Mau gh on ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary
jud gm en t in fav or of t he Cit y of C ov in gt on an d Office r Kev in Fu ll er in a 42 U.S.C.
§ 19 83 act io n. Mau gh on ’s al le ga ti on s st em fro m he r arre st fo r si m pl e ba tt ery at he r

ho m e an d a la te r in ci de nt in vo lv in g th e de le ti on of a ph ot og rap h fro m he r cel l ph on e.

On ap pe al , Mau gh on arg ue s th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t er r on eo us ly co nc lu de d th at

Offi cer F u l l er was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r m ak in g a warra nt le ss arre st

ou ts id e hi s juri sd ic ti on ; (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t e r r o n e ou sl y co nc lu de d th at Offi cer

Fu ll er was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r se iz in g Mau gh on ’s cam era; an d (3 ) on

rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er Mau gh on ’s

st at e la w cla im s. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm

.
W e rev ie w de no vo t h e di st ric t co ur t’s di sp os it io n of a su m m ary jud gm en t

m ot io n ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y. Le e v

. F erra ro , 28 4 F.3 d 11 88 , 11 90 (1 1t h

Ci r.20 02 ). Und er Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a), a co ur t sh al l gran t su m m ary jud gm en t as to

a cl ai m whe n a “ m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact

an d th e m ov an t is en ti t l e d t o ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w.” To sh ow th at th ere is a

ge nu in e is su e fo r tr i a l , a no nm ov in g pa rty m us t go be y on d th e pl ead in gs an d

de si gn at e sp eci fic fact s. See Cel ot ex Co rp . v Ca tre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 4 (1 98 6)

.
Mo reo ve r, whe re th e pl ai nt iff s ve rs io n of th e fact s is bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d by

th e reco rd su ch th at no re a s o n a b l e jury co ul d be li ev e it , th e co ur t sh ou ld no t ad op t

2 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 12th at ve rs io n of fact s fo r pu rp os es of ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Sco tt

v. Harr i s , 5 5 0 U .S. 37 2, 38 0 (2 00 7)

. Thi s is pa rti cu la rly tru e whe re, as he re, th e

rel ev an t fact s were pres erv ed by in -car vi de o or aud io reco rd in g. See id

. at 38 0- 81

.
In su ch a cas e, we ad op t th e ve r s i on of fact s as de pi ct ed in th e vi de o an d au di o fo r

pu rp os es of r ev ie win g a rul in g o n a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Id

.
Th e r e l e v a nt ev en ts be ga n on May 29 , 20 10 , whe n Mau gh on go t in to an

al te rcat io n at he r so n’s ba se ba ll ga m e in Co vi ng to n, Geo rg ia wit h Crystal Den sm or e,

th e gi rlf rie nd of Mau gh on ’s ex
- h us ba nd , Mat th ew W es t. Fo ll owi ng th e in ci de nt ,
Den sm or e cal le d th e Co vi ng to n Po li ce Dep art m en t (in Newto n Co un ty), an d Offi cer

Kev in Fu ll er wen t to th e ba se ba ll fie ld

. Den sm or e to ld Offi cer Fu ll er th at Mau gh on

ha d th reat en ed to ki ll he r, pu sh ed he r, an d sc rat ch ed he r. Offi cer Fu ll er to ok

st at em en ts fro m Den sm or e, W es t, an d W es t’s m ot he r, an d ob se rv ed sc rat ch m ark s on

Den sm or e’s sh ou ld er. Mau gh on ha d al read y ret ur ne d to he r ho m e in W al to n Co un ty.

Fu ll er in te nd ed to ob ta in an arre st warra nt fo r Mau gh o n t h e d a y aft er th e

in ci de nt

. La t e r o n th e ev en in g of th e 29 th , ho wev er, Geo rg ia St at e Troo pe r Cal

Bu rto n, wit h P os t 4 6 i n M on ro e, Geo rg ia (in W al to n Co un ty), ca ll ed Offi cer Fu ll er

to rel ay th at he ha d in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g th e cas e an d as ke d wha t Fu ll er was do in g

ab ou t Mau gh on ’s arre st

. Bu rto n is a fri en d of D e n s mo r e ’s

. Tha t sa m e ev en in g, a

Newto n Co un ty di sp at ch er in fo rm ed Fu ll er th at th e W al to n Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce

3 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 3 of 12ha d co nt act wit h Mau gh on

. Fu ll er th en to ld a W al to n Co un ty di sp at ch er th at he was

“ go nn a ta ke a warra nt ou t on he r,” an d sa id h e w o u l d a s k h i s se rg ean t if he co ul d

m eet th e W al to n Co un ty Lieu te na nt to pi ck u p M a u gh on

. The di sp at ch er sa id th at

Mau gh on li ve d rig ht ne ar th e co u n t y l i ne , an d Fu ll er’s se rg ean t ga ve Fu ll er

pe rm is si on to go to Mau gh on ’s ho us e to tak e cu st od y of h er.

W he n Offi cer Fu ll er arri ve d at Mau gh on ’s ho us e, Mau gh on w as sta ndi ng in th e

th res ho ld of he r fro nt do or weari ng on ly a t-s hi rt and he r un de rwear

. Offi cer Fu ll er

to ld Mau gh on he ha d a warra nt f o r h er arre st an d as ke d he r fo r id en ti fic at io n,

whe reu po n Mau gh on le d Offi cer Fu ll er to he r ve hi cl e. At th at po in t, W al to n Co un ty

Sh e rif f’s Dep ut y Jo se ph Bro cco li arri ve d an d ob se rv ed wha t he be li ev ed was

Mau gh on trying to ge t awa y fro m Fu ll er.

W he n Mau gh on was op en in g he r ve hi cl e, Fu ll er at te m pt ed to arre st he r, bu t

Mau gh on ph y si cal ly res is te d th e arre st

. Offi cer Fu ll er th en wres tl ed wit h Mau gh on

an d to ld he r to co op erat e or sh e wou ld be pe pp er sp rayed. Bro cco li to ld he r to cal m

d o wn an d co m

pl y wit h Fu ll er’s in st ru ct io ns aft er whi ch sh e be ga n to co op erat e

.
Fu ll er to ok Mau gh on to th e New t o n C o u n t y Ja il an d sh e was ch arg ed wit h si m pl e

ba tt ery fo r th e in ci de nt at th e ba se ba ll ga m e. Late r, sh e was al so ch arg ed wit h

m ak in g te rro ris ti c th reat s. A gr an d jury ret ur ne d an in di ct m en t wit h bo th ch arg es , an d

a cri m in al pro se cu ti on is cu rren tl y un de rway

.

4 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 4 of 12In a rel at ed in ci de nt , on Sep te m be r 26 , 20 10 , Offi cer Fu ll er an d an ot he r of fic er,

Gran t Sat te rfi el d, were di ni ng at th e Lon gh or n Res ta ur an t in Co vi ng to n, Geo rg ia (th e

“ Lon gh or n in ci de nt ”). Mau gh on is em pl oyed as a se rv er th ere. U p o n s e e in g th e

of fic ers , Mau gh on as ke d an o ff-d ut y em pl oyee to ta ke a pi ct ur e of Fu ll er us in g

Mau gh o n ’s c e l l p ho ne

. The of fic ers ob se rv ed th is , an d Sat te rfi el d as ke d fo r th e

Lon gh or n m an ag er, wh o t he n d el et ed th e p ho to at t he di rect io n o f th e p ol ic e.

Mau gh on la te r fil ed th is act io n con cern in g bo th he r arre st an d th e in te ract io n

at Lon gh or n. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Fu ll er an d th e Ci ty of

Co vi ng to n. Thi s ti m el y ap pe al -- on ly as to th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Fu ll er -- fo ll ows

.
Fi rs t, we di sa gr ee wit h Mau gh on ’s arg um en t th at Offi cer Fu ll er was no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e fal se arre st cl ai m

. “ As we ha ve of te n ob se rv ed , [q ]ual ifi ed im m

un it y of fe rs co m pl et e pr ot ect io n fo r go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls su ed in th ei r

in di vi du al cap aci ti es as lo ng as th ei r co nd uc t vi ol at es no cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y

or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le p e r s o n w o ul d ha ve kn own .”

McC ul lo ug h v. Ant ol in i, 55 9 F.3 d 12 01 , 12 05 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
The do ct rin e of qu al ifi ed im m un it y al lo ws of

f i c i a l s to carr y ou t th ei r di sc ret io na ry

du ti es wit ho ut th e f

ear of pe rs on al li ab il it y or ha ras si ng li ti ga ti on , pr ot ect in g fro m

su it al l bu t th e “ pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt or on e who is kn owi ng ly vi ol at in g th e f ed eral

la w.” Id. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

5

Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 5 of 12“ [T]o rece iv e qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an of

fic ia l m us t fir st es ta b li sh th at he was

act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of h i s di sc ret io na ry au th or it y whe n th e al le ge dl y wro ng fu l

act s oc cu r r e d

. ” Id . a t 12 05 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. A g ov ern m en t of fic ia l act s wit hi n

he r di sc ret io na ry au th or it y if th e act io ns were (1 ) “ un de rta ke n pu rs ua nt to th e

pe rfo rm an ce of [h is ] du ti es ” an d (2 ) “ wit hi n th e sc op e of [h is ] au th or it y .” Ri ch v.

Dol la r, 84 1 F .2d 15 58 , 15 64 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). “ In ap pl y in g each pr on g o f th is tes t,

we lo ok to th e ge ne ral na tu re of th e de fen da nt ’s act io n, te m po rari ly pu tt in g as id e th e

fac t t h a t it m ay ha ve be en co m m it te d fo r an un co ns ti tu ti on al pu rp os e, in an

un co ns ti tu ti on al m a n n e r, to an un co ns ti tu ti on al ex te nt , or un de r co ns ti tu ti on al ly

in ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces .” Hol lo m an ex re l. H ollom an v. Harl an d, 37 0 F.3 d 12 52 ,
12 66 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). In ot he r wor ds , whe n de te rm in in g th e sc op e of di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y , a co ur t lo ok s to th e ge ne ral na tu re of a de fen da nt ’s act io n, no t th e sp eci fic

un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t. See Harb ert In t’l, In c. v. Ja m es , 15 7 F.3 d 12 71 , 12 82 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 98 ) (p ro vi di ng th at “ [t]he in qu iry is no t whe th er it was wit hi n th e de fen da nt ’s

au th or it y to co m

m it th e al le ge dl y il le ga l act ”). “ In st ead , a co ur t m us t as k whe th er th e

act co m pl ai ne d of

, if do ne fo r a pr op er pu rp os e, w ou ld be wit hi n, or reas on ab ly

rel at ed to , th e ou te r pe rimeter of an of fic ia l’s di sc ret io na ry du ti es

. The sc op e of

im m un it y sh ou ld be de te rm in ed by t he rel at io n of th e [in jury] co mp l a i ne d of to th e

du ti es en tru st ed to th e of

fic er.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ Of co ur se , we m us t be su re

6 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 6 of 12no t to ch arac te riz e an d as se ss th e de fen da nt ’s act at to o hi gh a le ve l of ge ne ral it y ” bu t

in st ead “ we co ns id er a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l’s act io ns at th e m in i mu m l e v e l of

ge ne ral it y ne ces sa ry to rem ov e th e co ns ti tu ti on al ta in t.” Harl an d, 37 0 F.3 d at 12 66

.
If a go ve rn m en t o f

f i c i a l was act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y , “ th e bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e pl ai nt iff to sh o w t h a t t h e gr an t of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y is in ap pr op ria te .” McC ul lo ug h, 55 9 F.3 d at 12 05

. To do so , th e pl ai nt iff

m us t de m on st rat e: fir st , th at th e fact s v i e w e d in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e
pl ai nt iff es ta bl is h a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n by t he of fic e r s , an d, se co nd , t ha t it was

cl earl y est ab li sh ed at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt th at th e act io ns of t he de fen da nt were

un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Id

. W e ne ed no t co nd u c t t h is qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s in an y

sp eci fic ord er; rat he r, we are p erm it te d to ex erci se ou r so un d di sc ret io n i n d eci di ng

whi ch pr on g of th is in qu iry to ad dr es s fir st

. Id

. In as se ss in g th e cl earl y -es ta bl is he d

pr on g, we as k “ whe th er it wou ld be cl ear to a reas on ab le of fic er th at hi s co nd uc t was

un la wfu l in th e si tu at io n he co nf ro nt ed .” Vin y ard v. W il so n, 31 1 F.3 d 13 40 , 13 50
(1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo t a t i on om it te d)

. Thu s, in or de r fo r a pl ai nt iff to sh ow th at a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n was cl earl y es ta bl is he d, sh e m us t sh ow (1 ) “ th at a m at eri al ly

si m il ar cas e h a s al read y be en de ci de d, gi vi ng no ti ce to th e po li ce”; (2 ) “ th at a

br oa de r, cl earl y es ta bl is he d pr in ci pl e sh ou ld co nt ro l th e no ve l fact s in th is si tu at io n” ;

or (3 ) “ th is cas e fit s wit hi n th e ex cep ti on of co nd uc t whi ch so ob vi ou sl y vi ol at es [th e]

7 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 7 of 12co ns ti tu ti on th at pr io r cas e la w is un ne ces sa ry .” Keat in g v. Ci ty of Mi am i, 59 8 F.3 d

75 3, 7 66 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
The Fo ur th Am en dm en t gu aran te es t h a t al l in di vi du al s are “ se cu re in th ei r

pe rs on s

. . . an d effe ct s, ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es a n d se iz ur es .” U.S. Co ns t.

Am en d. IV. Deta in in g so m eo ne on th e ba si s of a fal se arr es t crea te s a co gn iz ab le

cl ai m un de r § 1 98 3. Ort eg a v . Chr is ti an , 8 5 F.3 d 15 21 , 1 52 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ). An

arre st m ad e wit h pr ob ab le cau se , h owe ve r, co ns ti tu te s “ an ab so lu te ba r to a se ct io n

19 83 act io n fo r fal se arre st .” Mar x v. Gum bi nn er, 90 5 F.2 d 15 03 , 15 05 -0 6 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 90 ). “ Pro ba bl e c a u s e [to arre st ] ex is ts whe re th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces wit hi n
[th e of fic ers ’] kn owl ed ge an d of whi ch th ey ha d reas on ab ly tru st wor th y in fo rm at io n
[are ] su ffi ci en t in th em se lv es to warra nt a m an of reas on ab le cau ti on in th e be li ef th at

an of fen se ha s be en or is be in g co m m it te d.” Bri ne ga r v. Uni te d St at es , 33 8 U.S. 16 0,

17 5- 76 (1 94 9) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ [T]he qu es ti on is whe th er the of fic ers ’ act io ns

are ‘objec ti ve ly reas on ab le ’ in li gh t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g th em ,
wit ho ut reg ard to th ei r un de rlyin g in te nt or m ot iv at io n.” Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S.

38 6, 3 97 (19 89 ).

In th is cas e, Mau gh on do es no t cl ai m th at Offi cer Fu ll er di d no t ha ve pr ob ab le

cau se to arre st he r fo r si m pl e ba tt ery. Thi s is li ke ly be cau se th e reco rd in di sp ut ab ly

sh ows th at Fu ll er ha d a reas on ab le be li ef th at Mau gh on ha d co m m it te d a cri m e ba se d

8 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 8 of 12on : (1 ) a writ te n st at em en t by Den sm or e de sc rib in g th e in ci de nt be twee n he rs el f an d

Mau gh on , (2 ) Fu ll er’s ob se rv at i o n o f sc rat ch es on Den sm or e’s sh ou ld er th at

pu rp or te dl y were m ad e by Mau gh on , an d (3 ) two ey ewit ne ss acco un ts of th e in ci de nt

.
Thu s, we ag ree t ha t Offi cer F ul le r ha d p ro ba bl e cau se to arre st Mau gh on

.
Mau gh on se em s to arg ue in st ead th at be cau se Fu ll er was ou ts i d e o f hi s
juri sd i c t i o n w h en he arre st ed he r, Fu ll er was no t act in g wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y , an d in ad di ti on , th e arre st was un co ns ti tu ti on al

. To beg in wit h, th ere can

be no do ub t th at Fu ll er ha s m et th e fir st pr on g of th e di sc ret io na ry au th or it y te st

--
whe th er th e act was un de rta ke n pu rs ua nt to th e pe rfo rm an ce of hi s du ti es -- be cau se ,
whe n m ak in g th e arre st , he was act in g un de rta ki ng an act cl earl y wit hi n th e of fic ia l

res po ns ib il it ie s of a po li ce of fic er. See W oo d v. Kes le r, 32 3 F.3 d 87 2, 87 7 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 03 ). As fo r th e se co nd pr on g
-- w h e t h e r t he act was wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s

au th or it y -- we m

us t “ as k whe th er th e act co m pl ai ne d of

, if do ne fo r a pr op er pu rp os e,

wou ld be wit hi n, or reas on ab ly rel at ed to , th e ou te r p e rimeter of an of fic ia l’s

di sc ret io na ry du ti es .” See Harb ert , 15 7 F.3 d at 12 82

. Viewi ng th e arre st in th is way ,

we can no t s ay

th at Fu ll er was act in g ou ts id e of hi s au th or it y . As th e rec or d s ho ws,

du rin g th e arre st , Of

fic er Fu ll er was act in g wi th th e p erm is si on of h is su pe rv is or in

Newto n Co un ty, in co ll ab or at io n wit h W al to n C o u n t y, i n th e pr es en ce of a W al to n

9 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 9 of 12C o u n t y o ffi cer, an d ve ry cl os e to th e Newto n- W al to n co un ty l in e. On th is reco r d , 1

we co nc lu de th at Fu ll er ha s sh own th at he was act in g -- bo th li te ral ly an d fig ur at iv el y

-- wit hi n th e “ ou te r pe rimeter” of hi s di sc ret io na ry du ti es whe n he arre st ed Mau gh on

in W al to n C ou nt y

.
Bec au se Fu ll er was act in g wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry au th or it y , Mau gh on n o w

m us t sh ow th at th e arre st it se lf was un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r cl earl y es ta bl is h e d la w.

W e are un pe rs ua de d. Aga in , so lo ng as th ere is pr ob ab le cau se fo r a pl ai n ti ff’s

warra nt le ss arre st , th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t is no t vi ol at ed

. W oo d, 32 3 F.3 d at 87 8;

se e al so Bro wn v. Ci ty of Hun st vi ll e, Ala., 60 8 F.3 d 72 4, 73 4 (1 1t h Ci r

. 20 10 )
(p ro vi di ng th at “ th e ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se at th e ti m e of arre st is an ab so lu te ba r

We rec og nize that under Ge org ia law, “ a pea ce of fice r has powe r of a

rre st only in the 1 territory of the g overnme ntal unit by which he w as appointed, but ther e ar e exceptions to this rule.” Hasting s v. State, 441 S.E.2d 83, 84 (Ga. App. 1994) . For example, a law e nforc ement office r may

make a n arr est without a war

rant for an off ense c ommitt ed in his prese nce, e ven if the ar rest is outside of his jurisdiction. Delong v. Domenici, 610 S.E.2d 695, 698 (Ga . App. 2005). Simil arly , if a c rime occ urs on a bounda ry line betwee n city

and county , jurisdiction is proper in either ve nue. Criddle v. State, 712 S.E.2d 569, 571 (Ga . App. 2011).
To arg ue that F uller illeg ally arr ested he r, Maug hon cites seve ral state a nd fede ral c ases, none of w hich is compelling . Two ar e unre lated ca ses about medica l car e. Albany Urolog y Clini c, P.C. v. Cleveland, 528 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. 2000) ; Blotner v. D oreika , 678 S.E.2d 80 (Ga. 2009). A third is a c ase f rom 1892 that addre sses the re lationship between a n incorporated city and its neig hboring , unincorporated county . Bla ir v. State, 17 S.E. 96 (Ga. 1892) . Another c ase cited wa s reve rsed ba sed on a subse quent finding of proba ble ca use. B rown v. Camden County , Ga., 583 F . Supp. 2d 1358 (S.D. Ga. 2008), r ev’d, B rown v. Smith, 342 F. App’x 449 (11th Cir. 2009). The la st one, Her

ren, is cited f

or the proposition that if there was a mple time to obtain a

war rant then the re should be no qua lified immunit y . Her ren v. B owy er, 850 F .2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1988). Howe ver, H err en wa s decide d on a diffe rent issue a nd Maug hon is simpl y

rely ing on dicta, which is not binding on us. I d. at 1547 n.7.

10 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 10 of 12to a su bs eq ue nt co ns ti tu ti on al c ha ll en ge to th e arre st ”). Mo reo ve r, Mau gh on ha s

fai le d to ci te an y bi nd in g au th or it y cl earl y es ta bl is hi ng , fo r pu rp os es of th e qu al ifi ed

im m un it y an al y si s, th at an ex tra -juri sd ic ti on al arre st su pp or te d by arg ua bl e pr ob ab le

cau se vi ol at es th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. Thu s, Fu ll er

is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e fed eral fal se arre st cla im

.
W e si m il arl y fin d no m eri t to Mau gh on ’s cl ai m th at O f f i c e r F u l le r was no t

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y f o r se iz in g Mau gh on ’s cam era du rin g th e Lon gh or n

in ci de nt . To sh ow t ha t Offi cer F ul le r se iz ed he r ph on e an d di rect ed th at th e p ho to s

on it be de le te d, t he on ly ev id en ce Mau gh on in tro du ced was th e affi da vi t of Terry

Tall ow, m an ag er of th e Lon gh or n St eak ho us e, whe re Of f i cer Fu ll er an d Offi cer

Sat te rfi el d were di ni ng

. Tall ow’s affi da vi t sa y s th at , “ [t]he of fic er th en as ke d th at th e
pi ct ur e on th e cam era ph on e be de le te d bu t co ul d no t fig ur e o u t ho w to wor k th e
ph on e. Thu s , I d el et ed a pi ct ur e fro m Am be r Mau gh on ’s cam era ph on e, at th e

Offi cer’s req ue st , an d r e t u r n ed th e ph on e to Ms

. Mau gh on .” Howev er, Tall ow’s

affi da vi t do es no t in d i cat e whi ch of th e two of fic ers as ke d he r to de le te th e ph ot o.

Acco rd in gl y , as th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed , Mau gh on fai le d to co m e fo rward wit h an y

ev id en ce to de m on st rat e th at Offi cer Fu ll er to ok he r ph on e or cau se d th e ph ot o to be

de le te d. Nor , as th e di st ric t co ur t fu rth er co nc lu de d, ha s Mau gh on ci te d an y bi nd in g,

cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w su ffi ci en t to no ti fy Fu ll er th at as ki ng th e m an ag er to de le te th e

11 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 11 of 12ph ot o fro m th e ph on e (o r, pe rh ap s, acco m pa nyin g an of

fic er who as ke d th at th e ph ot o

be de le te d) wou ld vi ol at e th e pl ai nt i f f ’s c o n st it ut io na l rig ht s. The refo re, Fu ll er is

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e fed eral cl ai m co nc ern in g th e Lon gh or n in ci de nt

.
Fi na ll y , we reject Mau gh on ’s cl a i m t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ta ke

su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on of he r st at e la w cl ai m s on rem an d. As w e ’v e al read y

de te rm in ed , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Fu ll er on al l of

Mau gh on ’s fed eral cl ai m s. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n

in de cl in in g to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er Mau gh on ’s st at e la w cl ai m s.

See C arn eg ie -Me ll on Uni v. v . Coh il l, 4 84 U.S. 34 3, 3 49 -5 0 (1 98 8)

.
AFFIRMED.

12 Case: 12-12561 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 12 of 12