[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10521

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00019-RH-GRJ

BRENDA HAMILTON,

JAMES HAMILTON,

DENNIS LARAMORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LOUIS ROBERTS, III,

In his official capacity as Sheriff,

Jackson County, Florida,

STEPHEN SMITH,

In his individual capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 11, 2017)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges:

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 1 of 8 
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Brenda Hamilton, James Hamilton,1

and Dennis Laramore appeal 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees Louis Roberts III, in 

his official capacity as Sheriff of Jackson County, Florida, and Deputy Stephen 

Smith, in his individual capacity, in Appellants’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and state law. Appellants assert the district court erred in (1) granting 

qualified immunity to Deputy Smith on the Hamiltons’ excessive force claims, and

(2) granting qualified immunity to Deputy Smith on Laramore’s unlawful search 

and seizure claim. After review,2 we affirm the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Deputy Smith and Deputy Corey Finch responded to a 911 call that gunshots 

were heard on Ms. Hamilton’s rural property and a dog may have been shot. Upon 

their arrival at the property, Deputy Smith and Deputy Finch encountered two men 

standing near a vehicle, Mr. Hamilton and a neighbor. Deputy Smith told the men 

to place their hands in the air, and asked them what they were doing, and whether 

they had a gun. The neighbor raised his hands and advised he had a gun. 

Hamilton initially raised his hands but then lowered them. Deputy Smith 

again ordered Hamilton to raise his hands but Mr. Hamilton shouted that “[he] 

 1 James Hamilton is Brenda Hamilton’s father.

2 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. K.A. ex rel. F.A. v. 

Fulton Cty. Sch. Dist., 741 F.3d 1195, 1210 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 2 of 8 
3

own[ed] this land and you sons of bitches are trespassing.” Mr. Hamilton then 

started advancing toward the deputies who backed up until they were behind one of 

the patrol cars. The deputies repeatedly told Mr. Hamilton to stop and to keep his

hands up or they would shoot. Mr. Hamilton kept walking toward the deputies, 

insisting they were on his land and did not have a right to be there, until he too got 

behind the patrol car with the deputies. At this point, Deputy Smith handcuffed 

Mr. Hamilton. Deputy Smith then retrieved the neighbor’s loaded firearm from his 

waistband and a loaded revolver from the seat of the vehicle against which the men 

had been leaning. 

After Mr. Hamilton was handcuffed, Ms. Hamilton arrived at the property. 

She got out of the car holding a bottle of Bud Light in her left hand and a Smith 

and Wesson .38 Special in her right hand. She walked quickly toward the deputies 

and her father asking what the deputies were doing to him. As she was 

approaching her father and the deputies, Deputy Smith drew his firearm and told 

her he was going to shoot her and ordered her to drop the gun. Ms. Hamilton 

stopped advancing but refused to drop the gun. After Deputy Smith again ordered 

her to drop the gun, Ms. Hamilton finally dropped the gun at her feet. At that time, 

Deputy Smith slung Mr. Hamilton into the hood of the car and moved to subdue 

Ms. Hamilton. Simultaneously, Ms. Hamilton dropped to the ground. Deputy 

Smith stuck his knee in Ms. Hamilton’s back, handcuffed her, “snatched [her] up 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 3 of 8 
4

. . . and shoved [her] in [a patrol car].” Deputy Finch retrieved Ms. Hamilton’s 

weapon and secured it in his vehicle. 

Shortly thereafter, Dennis Laramore arrived in his truck and parked 50 yards 

away from the patrol cars. Laramore got out of his truck and walked toward the 

patrol cars when Sergeant Bruce Ward (who had arrived to assist with the 

investigation) told Laramore to “[s]top right there.” Laramore stopped, put his 

hands up, and stated, “I’m the one that called.” Ward sarcastically remarked, “[i]s 

that supposed to mean something to me?” Thereafter, Laramore and Sergeant 

Ward exchanged words, with Laramore telling Sergeant Ward to talk to him like a 

human or arrest him or “I’m just going to whip your ass.” 

Sergeant Ward asked Laramore if he had any firearms in his truck and 

Laramore responded he had two, but told Ward not to touch them unless he had a 

search warrant. Deputy Smith retrieved one .22 caliber rifle and secured it in his 

patrol car. Smith missed the .22 pistol in the seat. When Ward advised he was 

going to handcuff him, Laramore said “[y]ou do it, make your arrest, because your 

ass is mine then.” Laramore was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. 

The Hamiltons and Laramore were released from custody with no charges 

filed. The officers searched the area and found Ms. Hamilton’s dogs uninjured, 

and found no evidence of anyone having been on Ms. Hamilton’s property. The 

deputies returned the neighbor’s two guns at the scene. Suspecting that Ms. 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 4 of 8 
5

Hamilton and Laramore had been drinking, the deputies retained their guns and 

placed them in evidence at the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Hamilton and 

Laramore were given property receipts for the weapons, which they retrieved from 

the Sheriff’s Office the following day. 

II. DISCUSSION

Qualified immunity protects governmental actors performing discretionary 

duties from civil liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established 

constitutional or statutory right. Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th 

Cir. 2009). “In order to receive qualified immunity, the public official must first 

prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the 

allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Id. (quotations omitted). In this case, it is not 

disputed that Deputy Smith was performing discretionary duties when responding 

to a report of shots fired at Ms. Hamilton’s property. 

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary 

authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not 

appropriate.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). In evaluating 

whether the plaintiff has met his burden, we ask “whether taken in the light most 

favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show that 

Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right? If so, the second 

question is whether the right, be it constitutional or statutory, was clearly 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 5 of 8 
6

established.” Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2008)

(quotation, internal citation, and alterations omitted).

A. Hamiltons’ Excessive Force Claims

The Hamiltons assert the district court erred in granting qualified immunity 

to Deputy Smith on their excessive force claims. In an excessive force case, 

whether a constitutional violation occurred is governed by the Fourth 

Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 

194, 197 (2004). Our cases identify several factors instructive in determining 

whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable, including “(1) the 

need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the 

amount of force used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted and, (4) whether the 

force was applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically.” Slicker v. 

Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted).

The district court found the facts, for summary judgment purposes as 

follows:

The officers responded to a report of shots fired. Before they could 

sort out the situation, they were met with armed individuals, including 

two who resisted the officers’ lawful commands. The two were 

verbally belligerent. One carried a handgun and refused, at least for a 

time, to put it down. The officers detained the individuals who 

resisted their lawful commands, using force of a kind that ordinarily 

attends an arrest. 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 6 of 8 
7

The district court concluded Deputy Smith did not use constitutionally excessive 

force, and even if the force was excessive, Deputy Smith was entitled to qualified 

immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly established law. After 

thorough review, we agree and affirm the district court. 

First, the Hamiltons have cited no case, nor have we found a case, that 

addresses facts similar to the ones in this case. Second, the use of force in this case 

was objectively reasonable. It was not unconstitutional for Deputy Smith to shove 

Mr. Hamilton aside so he could deal with Ms. Hamilton, who was refusing to drop 

her gun while approaching an officer. It was also not unconstitutional for Deputy 

Smith to take control of Ms. Hamilton, who had shown a willingness to hold onto 

her gun when told to drop it. The force used on the Hamiltons was reasonable 

under the circumstances. 

B. Laramore’s Search and Seizure Claim

Laramore asserts the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to 

Deputy Smith on his search and seizure claim. Officers conducting a short 

investigative detention may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect 

their personal safety. See United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 

2001). 

The district court found the following:

Here the officers were dealing with armed and unruly individuals 

following a report of shots fired. It was dark; individuals continued to 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 7 of 8 
8

arrive; the officers were outnumbered and could not know if more 

individuals would be arriving; the situation was in flux. The officers 

understandably wished to control the guns at the scene. 

The district court concluded there was no clearly established law governing a

situation in which an officer enters an unlocked vehicle to seize guns while the 

guns’ owner is nearby. And in any case, the officer could reasonably believe it

necessary to enter the truck and seize any guns to protect the officers and the 

public. We agree that there was neither a constitutional violation nor any clearly 

established law governing this situation, and affirm the district court’s grant of 

qualified immunity to Deputy Smith.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.3

AFFIRMED.

 3

 Appellants’ other arguments require little discussion. Their appeal of the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment to the Sheriff fails. As there was no constitutional 

deprivation shown, they could show no custom or policy of the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office 

allowing for such deprivation. 

Appellants also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their state law 

assault and battery claims. Their arguments are meritless. 

Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 8 of 8