FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 16, 2010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 10 14 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar D. C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 00 43 -CDL TAMARA PERRY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us GREENE COUNTY , GEORGIA, a Pol it ic al Subd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Geo rg ia , CHRIS HOUSTON, in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Dep ut y

Sh eri ff o f Green e Co un ty, etal. Defen da nt s- App el le es . App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Au gu st16 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el la ntTam ara P erry file d s ui t ag ai ns t Gre en e Co un ty, Geo rg ia , Green e

Co un ty Sheri ff Ch ris Hou st on , Depu ty Sheri ffs MarkFu ll er an d P au l En gl et , and Serg ean t Dar el l Po wers all eg in g v ari ou s v io la ti on s o f he r ri gh ts un de r bo th fed eral an d s ta te co ns ti tu ti on al an d s ta tu to ry law. Sh e n ow ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s. I. On Au gu st2, 2 00 7, Pe rry , who is a fo rm er Dep ut y Sh eri ff, was dri vi ng he r ve hi cl e eas tb ou ndon Int ers ta te 20 inGreen e Co un ty, Geo rg ia , when sh e p as se d de fen da ntCo rp or al MarkFu ll er, wh o was pa rk edinhi s p atro l ca r in th e m ed ia n o f th e in te rs ta te . Perry’ s v eh ic le ha d t in te d wi nd ows an d a n unt in te d b utdi rty pla st ic co ve r ov er h er v eh ic le ’s li cen se pl at e. Afte r Co rp or al Fu ll er o bs erv edth e win do w ti nt in g a ndpl as ti c ta g c ov er, h e d eci de d t o p ur su e Perry . Cor po ral Fu ll er p ul le d ne xtto Perry’ s v eh ic le inord er t o re adhe r li cen se pl at e num be r. Aftera st ol en ve hi cl e ch eckcam e b ackne ga ti ve , Cor po ral Fu ll er p ul le d b eh in d F ul le r’s ve hi cl e an d a ct iv at edhi s emergen cy li gh ts . Perry, ho wev er, d idno t p ul l o ve r. In h er de po si ti on , Perry clai m s tha t s he di d n otpu ll ov er b ecau se sh e “ ha d n o i de a wha t [Co rp or at e Fu ll er] was d oi ng .” Thi s t es ti m on y is di rect ly con tra di ct edby Co rp or al Fu ll er’s d as h- cam vi de o, wh ic h was m ad e av ai labl e to th is co urt as pa rt of th e rec or d o n app eal , whi ch cle arl y sh ows th atCo rp or al Fu ll er p ul le d b eh in d 2Perry ’s veh ic le with h is em erg en cy li gh ts act iv at ed . The fac t tha t Pe rry is he rs el f a fo rm er l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer m ak es he r st at em en t ab ou t n otun de rs ta nd in g wh at Co rp or al Fu ll er was do in g e ve n m or e unb el ie vabl e. Afte r Perry

fai le d t o p ul l o ve r, Co rp or al Fu ll er advi se d Gre en e Co un ty 911 of th e si tu at io n a ndth enact iv at edhi s s ire n. In ord er t o m ak e su re tha t Pe rry ha d

“ ev ery op po rtu ni ty to o bs erv e [Fu ll er’s] veh ic le an d t he em erg en cy li gh ts ,” Co rp or al Fu ll er s tra dd le d t he lan e d iv id er an d p os it io ne d h is ve hi cl e so th atit wou ldbe di rect ly in v ie w of Pe rry ’s lef t d oo r m irr or . All o f th is is co nf irmed by th e d as h- cam

vi de o t ak enfro m

Co rp or al Fu ll er’s p atro l ca r an d re vi ewedby bot h th e d is tri ctco urt an d t hi s co urt. App ro xi m at el y

th ree m il es an d fo ur

m in ut es aft er Co rp or al Fu ll er i ni ti at ed hi s emergen cy

li gh ts , ano th er Sh eri ff’s Dep ut y , def en da ntDepu ty Paul Eng le tt , arri ve d t o a ss is t wi th th e p ur su it . After De pu ty E ng le ttpu ll edinfro ntof P erry’ s ve hi cl e an d app li edhi s b reak s, Pe rry fin al ly pul le d o ve r to th e sh ou ld er an d st op pe d h er v eh ic le . Becau se ne it he r of fic er kne w th e rea so n fo r Perry ’s fai lu re t o pu ll ov er, the y

bo thdre w th ei r se rv ic e weap on s an d p oi nt edth em inPerry’ s di rect io n a s t he y

ap pr oa ch edhe r ve hi cl e. Acco rd in g t o P erry, bot h o ffi cers dre w th ei r weap on s, u se d i napp ro pr ia te lan gu ag e, an d o rd eredhe r to ge t o utof h er ve hi cl e an d l ie face do wn o n t he gro un d. Co rp or al Fu ll er’s d as h- cam vi de o s ho ws 3th atPerry go t o n t he gro un d o n h er o wn ac co rdan d was hand cu ffedby Corp or al

Fu ll er wh il e sh e was lying on he r st om ach . Perry cl ai m s t ha t Co rp or al Fu ll er

“us eden ou gh for ce t o l eav e [h er] trau m at iz ed , bru is edan d s or e.” The da sh -cam vi de o, h owe ve r, sh ows no th in g m or e th ana st an dard , pea cefu l arres t. Perry als o cl ai m s t ha t the ha nd cu ffs cau se d b ru is in g a ndswel li ng on he r wris ts . Howev er, as th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , Perry fail edto po in t t o a ny evi de nc e in th e rec or d t ha t s he to ldth e o ffi cers th atth e h an dc uf fs were caus in g h er p ai n. AfterPerry was p la cedinha nd cu ffs , a se arch was c on du ct edof P erry’ s en ti re v eh ic le , in cl ud in g t he pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment, t ru nk , andclo se d l ug ga ge co nt ai ne d i n h er tru nk . Cor po ral Fu ll er t es ti fie d i n h is de po si ti on th atth is sea rch was a st an da rdin ve nt ory sea rch , alt ho ug h h e ad m it te d t ha t h e ex pe ct edto fin d co nt rab an d wh il e co nduc ti ng th e se arch . No co ntrab an d was fou nd . After t he se arch was c om

pl et e, Perry ’s veh ic le was t owe d a ndst or edinanim po un dm en t l ot . Perry was c ha rg edwith h av in g a n i ll eg al tag co ve r, in vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 40
- 2- 41 , andfai lu re t o yiel d t o a n e m erg en cy ve hi cl e, in vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 40
- 6- 74 . On Dec em

be r 9, 2 00 9, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s. As to Perry’ s s ect io n 1 98 3 c la im s ag ai ns t the de fen da nt s i n th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t the y were en ti tl edto 4su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y . As to he r se ct io n 1 98 3 c la im ag ai ns t d efen da ntSh eri ff Ch ris Hou st on inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t s umm ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te ba se d o n El ev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of de fen da nt Green e Co un ty on t he gro un d t ha t Pe rry fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce tha t h er al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n was ba se d o n an o ffi ci al co un ty pol ic y or u no ffi ci al co un ty cus to m

or p ract ic e. The di stric t co urt al so gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt s on Perry’ s s ta te -la w cla im s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co urt h el d t ha t the Co un ty andth e de fen da nt s i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es were en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon so ve rei gn imm

un it y , andth atth e d efen da nt s i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es were en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon off ic ia l i m m un it y . II .

“ W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, ap pl y in g t he same le ga l s tand ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Ta na v. Dan ta nn a’ s , No. 0 9- 15 12 3, 2 01 0 U.S. App . LEXIS 14 51 4, at*6 (11 th Cir . Ju ly 15, 2 01 0) (ci ti ng Har riso n v . Ben ch mark Ele cs . Hun ts vi ll e, In c. , 59 3 F .3d12 06 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )). “ In do in g s o, we v ie w all ev id en ce an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t he no n- m ov in g p arty .” Id
. Sum m ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r whe re “ th e p le ad in gs , th e

5di sc ov ery an d d is cl os ur e m at eri al s o n fi le , andany affi da vi ts sh ow tha t the re i s n o ge nu in e is su e as to an y

m at eri al factan d t ha t the m ov an t i s en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c).

II I. Whe n i t co m es to th e in it ia l s to p a ndarre st , bec au se th e d efen da nt s ac te d with a t l eas t ar gu ab le pro babl e cau se , th e d efen da nt s i n t he ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es are e nt it le d t o qua li fie d i m m un it y . Se e Dur ru th

y v. Pas to r , 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 89 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ho ld in g t ha t o ffi cers are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y “ if t he re was arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se forth e arre st .”). The d efen dant s h adarg uabl e pr ob ab le cau se to arre stPerry for o bs cu rin g h er l ic en se pl at e und er O.C.G.A. §§ 40 -2 -4 1 a nd40 -2 -6 .1, as well as f oratt em pt in g t o e lu de a po li ce o ffi cer u nd er O.C.G.A. § 40 -6 -3 95 (a). W e al so co nc lu de , aft er co ns id eri ng all of the ev id en ce 1 in cl ud in g t he da sh -cam

vi de o, tha t the de fen da nt s ar e en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y on Perry’ s cl ai m

of e xc es si ve for ce. Lik ewis e, be cau se th e se arch co nduc te d o n P erry’ s v eh ic le was areas on ab le in ve nt ory search th atco m

pl ie d

As noted by

the district court, the f

act that the de fenda

nts did not cite § 40-2-6.1 or § 40- 1 6-395(a ) on the a

rre st report is irre levant to the cour t’s inquiry

of whe ther they

had arguable probable cause to arre st Perry . See Lee v. Fe rraro , 284 F.3d 1188, 1195 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he validity of an a rre st does not turn on the offe nse announc ed by the offic er a

t the time of the arr est.”). 6with c ou nt y

po li cy , th e d efen da nt s ar e en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m as well . 2 W e al so ag ree wi thth e d is tri ctco urt tha t d efen da ntHou st on , inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, is en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon Elev en th Am en dm en t imm un it y . Furt he r, de fen da ntGreen e Co un ty is en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atPerry’ s al le ge d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on s wer e cau se d b y anoff ic ia l co un ty pol ic y

or b y anun of fic ia l cu st om

or p ract ic e. Fi na ll y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n P erry’ s st at e-l aw cl ai m s, as well . Each o f th e d efen da nt s h av e imm un it y un de r st at e la w. AFFIRMED .

We rejec t Perry ’s contention that the se arc h was not a pr oper inve ntory sear ch bec ause 2 Corporal F uller admitted that he e x pecte d to find contraba nd. In United States v. Grossman , we held that “if a

n inventory

sear ch is otherwise rea sonable, its validity is not vit iated by

a police office r’s suspicion that contra band or othe r evide nce ma y be found inside the c ar.” 233 F. App’ x 963, 968 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ( quoting United States v. Staller , 616 F.2d 1284, 1290 (5th Cir. 1980)). 7