FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 34 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 00 63 -WS-CJK

DANIEL R. TH OMPSON, CATHY A. T HOMPSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , ve rs us W ENDELLHALL, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as sh eri ff o f San taRo saCo un ty, Fl or id a, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s, l AARON A. JASPER, JERRY D. UT SEY, in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , 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 an ts .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Defen da nt s J erry Utsey andAaro n J as pe r, bo th Sh eri ff’s d ep ut ie s i n S an ta Ro saCo un ty, Fl or id a, ap pe al th e d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io ns for su m m ary jud gm en t o n th e b as is of qua li fie d i m

m un it y . After c aref

ul rev ie w, we affi rm . The di stric t co urt’s o rd er s etforth th e fac ts of thi s ca se , so we wil l n ot res ta te th em

he re. In st ead , we wil l re fer t o s pe ci fic fact s as ne ces sary forou r an al y si s. We revi ew de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f su m m ary jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi edimm

un it y , vi ewin g t he fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov an t. See Drap er v . Reyno ld s, 3 69 F.3d12 70 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e an al y ze the se cla im s u nd er the fam il ia r two -s te p qua li fie d i m m un it y an al y si s. See Edward s v . Sha nl ey , 66 6 F .3d12 89 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ); s ee al so Sau ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 2 01 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 15 1, 2 15 6 (2 00 1) . The fi rs t s te p i s to de te rm in e whe th er the de fen da nt ’s con du ct“ am ou nt edto a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Lewi s v . Cit y

of WestPal m

Beac h, 5 61 F.3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 220 09 ). The s eco ndst ep is to de te rm in e “ whe th er the rig htvi ol at edwas c le arl y

es tabl is he d a t the ti m e o f th e v io la ti on .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Fi rs t, Ut se y

an d J as pe r arg ue th at , inli gh t o f th e ci rcu m st an ces th atev en in g, Dep uty Uts ey ’s han dc uf

fin g a ndde te nt io n o f Cat hy Thom ps on were n ot un reas on ab le un de r cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw. Ess en ti al ly, th ey arg ue th atbe cau se

“ [t]he re i s n o b rig htli ne gu id an ce as to ho w lo ng a pr e-arres t i nv es ti ga ti on de te nt io n c anoc cu r,” an d b ecau se th e fac ts of t hi s ca se are qui te pa rti cu lar, itwas no t cl earl y

est ab li sh edth atDepu ty Uts ey ’s act io ns were unr eas on ab le . As a res ul t, the y

co nt en d, qua li fie d i m

m un it y sh ou ldha ve be engra nt ed . W e an al y ze cl ai m s t ha t an off ic er ac te d u nr eas on ab ly dur in g a n in ve st ig at ory

de te nt io n u nd er the Fo urth Am en dm en t. See Vin y ardv. Wils on , 31 1 F.3 d 1 34 0, 1 34 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . To do th is , we ask“whe th er the off ic er’s co nduc t i s o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e in li gh t o f th e fac ts co nf ro nt in g t he off

ic er,” Edwar ds , 66 6 F .3dat 1 29 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Und er the fir stst ep in th e Sau ci er an al y si s, we m us t d eci de whet he r Dep ut y Uts ey ’s con du ctam ou nt edto a Fo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . See Lewi s, 5 61 F.3d at12 91 . Our i nqui ry

tu rn s o n wh ethe r th e m an ne r an d l en gth o f anin ve st ig at ory de te nt io n “ was reas on ab ly relat edin sco pe to th e ci rcu m st an ces whi ch jus ti fie d t he in te rfer en ce i n t he fir stpl ace.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gil , 20 4 F .3d13 47 , 13 51 (11 th 3Ci r. 20 00 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . In an swe rin g t hi s que st io n, we co ns id er

“ fo ur no n- ex cl us iv e fac to rs ,” na m el y : (1 ) th e p ur po se of t he de te nt io n; (2) th e di li ge nc e o f th e p ol ic e in co nduc ti ng th e in ve st ig at io n; (3) th e sc op e an d in tru si ve ne ss of t he de te nt io n; an d (4 ) th e dur at io n o f th e d et en ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v. Aco st a, 36 3 F .3d11 41 , 11 46 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). App lying th es e fac to rs to th e fac ts as c on st ru edat t he su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e, we ho ldth ata reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atth e h an dc uf fin g and in ve st ig at ory

de te nt io n o f Cat hy Thom ps on las te d fa r lo ng er tha n was reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry . W e rec og ni ze tha t o n t he se fact s, i t was no t u nr eas on ab le forDepu ty Uts ey to m ak e th e sp li t-s eco ndde te rm in at io n tha t, i f hi s fe ll ow o ffi cer h ad ob se rv edso m e act io n t ha t l edhi m to bri ng do wn Ca th y

Tho m ps on , itwas a t tha t m om en t n eces sary

to ha nd cu ff h er as well . See Gil , 20 4 F .3dat 1 35 1 (“ It wa s ne ces sa ry forth e ag en ts to de ta in Ms . Gil to pre ve nthe r fro m jeop ard iz in g t he ir in ve st ig at io n.” ). Bu t the len gt h a ndcir cu m st an ces of C athy Thom ps on ’s det en ti on were n ot“reas on ab ly relat edin sco pe to th e ci rcu m st an ces whi ch jus ti fie d” th e in it ia l d eci si on to hand cu ff h er. Id . Cath y Tho m ps on rem ai ne d h an dc uf

fedforat le as t an ho ur , well aft er the sce ne ha d b een sec ur ed . This , eve n t ho ug h t he fact s su gg es t tha t, wi th in ten m in ut es of b ei ng ha nd cu ffed , Tho m ps on was c al m

en ou gh th atUts ey

fel t i t was “ a li tt le ex tre m e” fo r he r to be ke pton th e g ro un d. Th is is 4pa rti cu la rly tru e in li gh t o f th e fac t tha t the re was ne ve r an y su sp ic io n t ha t s he he rs el f ha d b een in vo lv edin th e u nd erl y in g c rime. Fu rth er, a fe m al e o ffi cer s to od wit h Th om

ps on , andwas a va il ab le to pa t d own Tho m ps on if t he re h adbe enan y co nc ernth atTho m

ps onhe rs el f m ig htha ve po ss es se d aweap on . So i t s ho ul d h av e qu ic kl y be co m e cl ear t ha t i t was un ne ces sa ry to us e th e m or e in tru si ve m etho d o f ha nd cu ffi ng Tho m

ps on as t he in ve st ig at io n was co nduc te d. Beyondth at , th es e fac ts su gg es t tha t the pu rp os e o f th e d et en ti on ch an ge d whe n the off

ic ers , in cl ud in g Ut se y , beg ancajol in g s om e wit ne ss es to alt er the ir st at em en ts in anun tru th fu l way. It g oe s wi th ou t s ay in g t ha t co nt in ui ng to de ta in anin di vi du al , inha nd cu ffs , whi le en co ur ag in g wi tn es se s t o fa ls ify the ir s ta te m en ts ren de rs th e d et en ti on un reas on ab le . W e th eref or e fi ndDepu ty Uts ey ’s con du ct , 1 as itis all eg ed , to be un co ns ti tu ti on al . Hav in g re ach edth is co nc lu si on , we tu rnto th e se co ndst ep of t he Sau ci er an al y si s, i nqui rin g wh ethe r itwas c le arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e Dep ut y Uts ey I f the re asonable ness line is drawn by weighing the “limited violation of indivi dual 1 privac y involved ag ainst the opposing inter ests in crime pre vention and dete ction and in the police off icer ’s safe ty ,” and none of those “opposinginterests” a re be ing se rved, A costa, 363 F.3d at 1146 (quotation marks omitted), then that dete ntion necessa rily lacks a ny rea sonable relation “in scope to the c ircumstance s which justified the interf ere nce in the f

irst place,” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1573 (1985) (quotingTerr y v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, 88 S. C t. 1868, 1879 (1968)). SeeDelaw are v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S. Ct . 1391, 1396 (1979) ( “[T] he per missibi lity

of a pa rticular la w enf orce ment prac tice is judg ed by balanc ing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Ame ndment interests ag ainst its promoti on of leg itimate gove rnmental intere sts.” (empha sis added)) . 5de ta in edan d h an dc uf fedTho m ps onth atsu ch a de te nt io n v io la te d t he Fo urth Am en dm en t. Lewis , 56 1 F .3dat 1 29 1. Gi ve n t ha t the cas es on whi ch we rel ie d i n fin di ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n wer e d eci de d p rio r to th e ev en ts in th is cas e, an d t ha t tho se cas es lea ve no do ub t as to th e u nc on st itut io na li ty of Dep ut y Uts ey ’s act io ns as a ll eg ed , we con cl ud e th atitwas. Se e Sh arp e, 47 0 U.S. at68 2, 1 05 S. Ct . at 1 57 3; Pro us e, 44 0 U.S. at65 4, 9 9 S . Ct. at13 96 ; s ee al so Acos ta , 36 3 F .3d at11 46 ; Gi l, 2 04 F.3dat 1 35 1 (h ol di ng th atanin ve st ig at ory de te nt io n was reas on ab le wher e anin di vi du al “ was de ta in edforon ly as lo ng as i t was ne ces sa ry ” fo r th e p ol ic e to co m

pl et e th ei r in ve st ig at io n) . Nex t, Dep ut ie s Ut se y

an d J as pe r arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby de nyin g J as pe r qu al ifi edimm un it y ag ai ns t the cla im

th athe arre st edDani el Tho m ps on witho utpro babl e cau se . Alth ou gh Dani el Tho m ps on was a rres te d a nd ch arg edwith a gg rav at edass au lton a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer, J as pe r no w arg ue s th athe ha d a t l eas t ar gu ab le pro babl e cau se to arre stDani el Tho m ps on foreithe r of two m is de m ean oroff

en se s: (1) di sc ha rg in g afir earm invi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 79 0.1 5( 1) ; o r (2 ) br an di sh in g afir earm in vi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 79 0.1 0. 2 Section 790.15(1) pr ovides that “a ny person who know ingly

discharg es a f

irea rm in any 2 public place . . . commits a misdemeanor of the first degree .” F la. Stat. § 790.15(1). Section 790.10 provides that “[i]f any person having or

car rying a ny . . . firea rm . . . shall, in the prese nce of one or more pe rsons, exhibi t the same in a r ude, ca rele ss, angry , or threateningmanner , not in nece ssary self-de fense , the per son so offendingshall be guilty of a misdemea

nor of the f

irst degree .” I d. § 790.10. 6Inord er t o re cei ve qu al ifi edimm un it y ag ai ns t thi s cl ai m , Jas pe r m us t h av e po ss es se d a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arres t Dan ie l Th om ps on . See Gri de r v. C it y of Aub urn, 6 18 F.3d12 40 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts wher e rea so nabl e o ffi cers in th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d p os se ss in g t he sa m e kno wled ge as t he Defen da nt s co ul d h av e b el ie ve d t ha t p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t Pl ai nt iff

.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If th e o ffi cer h ad arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stforan y off en se , qu al ifi edimm

un it y ap pl ie s. Id . App lying th is st an da rdto th e fac ts as c on stru edat t he su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e, we co nc lu de th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atJas pe r di d n otpo ss es s arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to arre stTho m ps on . The rec or d c on ta in s ev id en ce tha t lo ot ers were fe aredto be act iv e in th e n ei gh bo rh oo d, o nl y on e sh otwas fi red , and th atTho m

ps on ’s nei ghbo r ackno wled ge d a t the sce ne th athe was t he on e who fir edth atsh otto fri gh te n a way lo ot ers . Furt he r, th e rec or d c on ta in s ev id en ce tha t Tho m ps on carr ie d t he fir earm

be cau se of h is fearth atitwou ldbe ne ces sa ry to de fen d a ga in stlo ot ers , andth athe ke ptth e fi rearm do wn b y hi s s id e wit ho ut di sp la y in g i t. The reco rdals o c on ta in s ev id en ce tha t Th om ps onimm ed ia te ly su rren de redth e fi rearm

when co nf

ro nt edby the off

ic ers . On th es e fac ts , a jury co ul d fi ndth atno reas on ab le off ic er i n t he same circu m st an ces an d p os se ss in g t he sa m e kno wled ge as J as pe r co ul d h av e b el ie ve d t ha t p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o 7arre stTho m ps on foreithe r of

th e o ffen se s J as pe r su gg es ts . Last , Depu ti es Jas pe r an d Ut se y arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt “ im pe rm is si bl y co ns id eredno n- reco rdin adm is sabl e ev id en ce” i n re ach in g i ts co nc lu si on s. Sp eci fic al ly, th ey

po in t t o t he di st ric t co urt’s re fere nc e to fact s d eri ve d fr om a cri m in al tri al st emm in g fr om th e sa m e ev en ts at i ss ue he re. Bu t the di st ric t co urt’s co m m en ts co nc ern in g t he se fact s wer e al l co nt ai ne d o nl y in th e “ Bac kg ro un d” po rti onof t he co urt’s o rd er; no ne was m en ti on edin th e co urt’s an al y si s o f th e two is su es be in g app eal ed . Furt he r, m os t o f th es e fac ts were i nd ep en de nt ly sup po rte d by oth er re co rdev id en ce. Thu s, ev enass um in g t ha t J as pe r an d Ut se y were co rrec t th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin co ns id eri ng th is ev id en ce, we co nc lu de th atan y erro r was ha rm le ss . Cf. Mas on v. Ba lc om , 53 1 F .2d71 7, 7 19 n.1 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) (d et erm in in g t ha t “ th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s adm is si on of t es ti m on y in ord er ‘no t t o h ear th e cas e in a va cuum ’ an d i ts co m m en ts on jud ic ia l n ot ic e . . . , if e rro r, ha d o nl y a ne gl ig ib le effe cton th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e an d wer e h arm le ss ”). 3 Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f qu al ifi edimm un it y wit h re sp ectto th es e two cla im s. AFFIRMED.

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981), we a dopted as 3 binding a ll Fifth Circuit prec edent f rom prior to Oc tober 1, 1981.

8