The H onorab le Ru ben C ast il lo, o f t h e N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2170 R O GE R F LE MI NG, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L I VI NGS T ON C OUN TY, I LLINO IS, an Il lin ois L oc al G ov er n m en ta l E n tit y, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- CV-01174

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 6, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 28, 2012

Befo re M ANI ON an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd C AST IL LO, D istrict Judge.  M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Roger Fl em i ng w as arres ted i n the e ar l y m o r ni nghour s o fA ug us t 4 , 20 06 , i n F l an ag an,2 N o. 11

- 2170 I l l i no i s f o r a l l eg edl y b r ea k i ngi nto a h om e an d f o ndl i ng tw o tee naged g i rl s. The st ate fi l ed cr i m i nal char ges ag ain st Fle m in g, b u t th os e ch ar ge s w e r e e ve n tu ally dropped fo r l ack ofsuffi ci ent e vi dence

. Fl em i ng the n filed a civ il su it in Ju ly 20 08 , as se rt in g th at m u l t ip le Livi n gston County offi ci al s were l i abl e forf al se ar re st, with hol di nge xc ul pat o r y e vi den ce , a nd de ny i ngF l emi ng ne ce ss ar y medi ca l c ar e whi l e he was i nc ar ce r at ed. Eventu all y, th e d istri ct cou rt dism issed several ofFl em ing’s st ate- l aw cl ai m s a nd Fl em i ng vo l untari l y di sm i sse d a ll b u t t h re e d ef e n d an ts . Th is left on ly Fle m in g’s cla im aga i nst S heri ff’ s Deputy Davi d Tu rnerf or fals e a rr est und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, and Fl em i n g’s i nd em ni fi cati on cl ai m ag ai nst S heri ff Rober t M cCartyand Liv i ngsto n County under the I l l i noi s L oc al G ove rnm entaland Gover nm entalEm plo yee s Tort I m m unity Act. The di str i ct co ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen d a n t s o n b o th c l a i ms . Fo r t h e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we a ffi r m.

I. I n the ear l y m or ni ng ho u rs o fA ugust 4, 20 06, Deputy T u r n e r wa s o n f o o tp a t r o l i n F l a n a g a n, I l l i n o i s, a t o wn i n Liv i ngsto n Co u n ty o fa l i ttl e m or e than 1, 000 peopl e. W hi l e o n patr ol, Turnern ot iced a m an exi t a house ab o uta b l o cka way fr o m Turne r ’ s po si ti o n. Tha t m an, T h o ma s T r o x e l, s a w T u r n e r a n d b e g a n w a l k i n g d o wnN o. 11

- 2170 3

A t first b lush , on e m igh t qu estion w hy T ro xel w as osten sibly 1 not i n a hurry to s eek hel p. A pp arent ly, Troxel had u nd ergone s eve ra l bypas s s ur ge ri es an d co ul d notr un. th e st r ee t to war d hi m ; Turne r i n turn b eg anwal king 1 to war d Tr o xe l

. Trox elr epo r te d t o Turne r tha t so m eo ne h ad j u st br ok en int o T ro x el’s h om e a n d h ad fon d led h is tw o t ee n ag ed d au gh t e r s , H ale igh an d D an ielle T ro x el, wh o h a d b e e n s l e e p i n gi n th e l i v i n gr o o m. W h atfollow ed im m e d iat ely th er ea fte r is n oten tir ely cl earfro m the re cor d: Turn er t esti fi ed that he went w i th Troxelbac k to T roxel ’ s ho m e, and Tro xelte sti fi ed that T urn erfi r stwentt o r et r i ev e hi s po l i ce c r ui se r a nd c o nd uc ted a cursory sea rch f or the p erp etrator before com i ng to Tro xel ’ s ho m e. W e a re notco ncer ned w i th th i s min o r c o n t r a d i c t i o n, h o we v e r, b e c a u s e th e t i me dispar i ty between the tw o narr ati ves i s inconsequentia l a nd be c a us e th e e v e nt s tha tf o l l o w a r e l a r g e l y u nd i s pu t e d. The r ec o r d i s cl ea r tha t, a s ho rt ti m e afte r meet i ng Troxeli n the m i dd l e o fthe str eet, Turnerw en t t o Troxel ’ s ho m e t o i nter vi ew Tro xel ’ s daughter s. O n T u rner’ s a rr i val, H al ei gh Tro xelto l d Tu rnerthat sh e, Da ni el l e, a nd the i r f athe r w er e as l ee p i n the l i ving ro om o fth ei r house. H al ei gh was awakened by a m an who wa s f o nd l i ng he r, b ut b e l i e v e d tha t s he was dream i ng and ther ef or e r ol l ed ove r and w ent b ack to sl eep . A fe w m om ents l ate r she was awakened by Dani el l e y el l i ng, “ W ha t ar e y o u do i ng ?” D an ie l l e’ s sh o ut al so aw ake ned Thom as Troxel, wh o then hea rd H al ei gh4 N o. 11

- 2170

H ale ig h a l s o s t a t e d i n a n a ffi da vi tfi l e d i n thi s l a ws ui tthat 2 she to ld T u rn er th e m an w as w ear ing a “ t-s hirt,” b u t later in he r depos i t i on s he s t at ed thatsh e had t ol d Turn erthe in tr u d er w a s w ea ri n g a “ lig h t c o lo re d t-sh ir t.” sa y, “ Dad, s o m eo ne ’ s i n the hou se.” I n the mids t o fthe com m oti on, the i ntruder fl ed thro ugh the k i tchen

— w he re a l i g ht ha d r e mai ne d o n

— an d o utthe b ac kdo o r . As h e fl ed , H al ei gh ca ught a gl i m pse o fthe i ntruder fro m th e ba ck; s he r epo rted to Turne r tha t he was wea r i ng cam oufl age car go shor ts , a darkbas ebal l cap, and, accor ding to Turner, a t- shi rt
. 2 A fterbr i efl y s peaki ng to Tro xel ’ s daugh te rs and acqu iring a p hy sical desc ription of the all eged i nt rud er, Tur ne r l eft th e ho us e a nd b eg ans ea r ch i ngf o r the s u s p e c ti n h i s p o l i c e c r u i s e r . So o n th e r e a ft e r, h e s a w a m ob ile h om e w ith its p or c h ligh t o n, sit u at ed ap p ro x im at ely a ha l fb l o ckno r tho fthe Tr o xe l hom e o n the s a m e s id e o f th e s tr ee t. T u rn er st op p ed atth e m ob ile ho m e, wentt o the do o r, a nd knock ed. The r e was no an swe r, b uta s Tur ne r w as ge tt i ngr ea dy to l ea ve he n o t i c e d a ma n wa l k i n g a d o g i n a n a l l e y wa y b eh i nd the m obi l e ho m e. The m an

— w ho turne d o utt o b e App ell ant Ro g erF l emi ng

— w as h ea d in g s ou th (in t h e d ir e c tio n of th e T ro x el h om e), b u t T u rn er d id n otim m ed iat ely sto p him

. Fl em i ng l eft the al l eyway and vee re d to war d a n int er se ct i o n a pp roxim at ely o ne b l o ckt o the w es t o f th e T ro x el h om e. T u rn er , f o l low in g in h is c r u i s e r, i n t e r c e p t e d F l emi n ga tth e i n t e r s e c t i o n . At th e ti m e Tur ne r s to pp ed hi m , F l emi ngwas wea r i ngN o. 11

- 2170 5

c a mo u fl a g e c a r g o s h o r t s , a b l a c k b a s e b a l l c a p , a nd a dark bl ue t- shi rt
. N o one el se w as i n the ar ea. Tur ne r e xpl aine d t o F l emi ngtha t he w as i nv es ti g at i ng a br ea k

- i n a nd a ss au l t, a nd a sk ed whethe r F l emi ng w oul d staywith hi m wh i l e he continued the i nvest i gation. Flem ing agreed , tied his d o g t o a n earby fire hy d ran t, an d cli m bed in the ba ck of Tu rner’s cru iser. Turner cal l ed f orbac kup, and another depu ty ar ri ved soo n ther eafter a nd park ed hi s ca r behi nd Turner ’ s. That deputy st aye d w i th Fl em i ng wh i l e Turnerwalk ed backto the Troxelhom e. O n retu r n in g to the T roxe l hom e, T urn er again intervi ew ed the tw o ass aul t v i cti m s. H al ei gh Tro xelco nfi rm ed th atthe i nt r ude r was a whi te mal e w ho was wea r i ng c am ou flag e c ar go sh or ts , a t- sh irt, an d a d ar k b as eb all cap . B ase d on H al ei gh’ s descr i pti on, the l oca ti on a t whi chTurne r di sc o ve r ed F l emi ng, a nd th e sh o r t amoun t ofti m e be tw een w h en the al l ege d bre ak- i n and assa ult s occur re d and the t i m e Turneri nter cepted Fl em i ng, Turner bel i ev ed that he had pro babl e ca use t o f or m al l y a rr est Fl em i ng f orr esi denti alb u rgl ar y a nd se xual ass aul t. A l though Turnerbel i eve d he had p robabl e ca use t o ar re st Fl em i ng, he ne ver thel ess so ught co nfi rm ati on f r o m th e s t a t e ’ s a t t o r n e y ’ s o ffi c e b e f o r e ma k i ng t he f el o nya r r e s t
. T urne r c a l l e d a s s i s t a nts t a t e ’ s a t t o r ne y CareyLuckm an and re l aye d a sum m ary o fthe eve nts. Tur ne r t es ti fi ed th athe t o l d Luc k m antha t th e amoun t ofti m e be tw ee n Turner ’ s fi rs t inter acti on with Thom as Troxel t o w hen Turnersa w Fl em i ng walk i ng hi s dog6 N o. 11

- 2170

was “ two t o thr ee min utes, m aybe t wo- an d- a- ha l fmin

utes. ” Turnerst ate d that thi s was m er el y a n es tim ate , an d Luc k m ant es ti fi ed th atTu rner had des cr ibe d the tim e p er iod in “ m in u te s.” B as ed on th e c los en es s in ti m e be tw een the al l ege d offense and Tu rner ’ s ini ti al s i g hti ngo fF l e mi ng, a s we l l a s Ha l e i g h Tr o xe l ’ s de s c r i pti o n tha t m at ch ed F l emi ng ’ s appe ar an ce , Luc k m anc o ncl ud ed that Turner had probabl e ca use t o ar re st Fl em i ng. H aving rece ived confirm ation from the sta te’s att or ney that he had probabl e ca use, T u rn erar re ste d F l emi ngf o r the o ffen se s o fr es i den ti alb ur g l ar y a nd sexualas saul t. Turnerand other offi cer s who had ar ri ved on the s cene then t oo k t h e add i ti onalst ep of conducti ng a “show

- up , ” where H al ei gh Tro xelvi ew ed F l emi ngfr o m the b ac kunde r a s tr ee tl i g ht

. Hal ei g h i den

ti fi ed Fl em i ng as the i ntruder. Fl em in g w as then t ra nsp o r te d t o j ai l a nd c ha r g ed wi thr es i den ti albu rgl ar y, cr i m i nal tr espass to r esi dence, aggr avat ed sexual ass aul t, and att em pted agg ra vate d sexualas saul t. The sta te cour t l ate r dism i sse d the char ges ag ai nst Fle m in g for lac k of e vid en c e. Fle m in g t h en filed th is s u it i n J uly20 08. Fl em i ng al l ege d num er ou s inj uri es aga i nst m u ltip le d efe n d an ts u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 , an d Il lin ois s t a t e l a w. A s n o t e d ab o v e , h o we v e r , th e o n l y c l a i ms before us on app eal are (1) a claim aga in s t Sh eriff’ s De pu t y Da v i d T urne r forf a l s e a r r e s tu nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1983 , and ( 2) an i nd em nifi cation clai m against Sh eriff Ro be r t M cCa r ty an d Li ving st o n Co unty unde r the I l l i n o i s L o c a l G o v e r n me n t a l a n d G o v e r n me n t a l E mplo yee s Tor t I m m unity Act, 74 5 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 10/ 1- 101 et seq
.N o. 11

- 2170 7 The dis c ov er y deadl i ne was or i gi nal l y s et f orFebruar y 1 2, 201 0, b u t w as extended to A ugust 3 1, 20 10, o n the p a r t i e s ’ j o i ntmo t i o n t o c o nt i nue the de a dl i ne . On Se ptem ber 30, 20 10

— four w eeks after the discov ery deadli ne had passe d

— the defendan ts file d a m oti on f or su m m ar y j ud gm ent, as ser ti ng bo th thatTurnerhad probabl e ca use t o ar re st Fl em i ng an d t hat, ev en i fTurner w as m i sta ken in hi s be l i efthat h e had pro babl e ca use, Turner w as enti tl ed to q ual i fi ed i m m unity b ecause hi s m i s t a k e wa s o bj e c t i v e l y r e a s o nab l e . ( Th e de fe nd a nt s al so note d

— and Fl em i ng di d not di spute

— th ati fthe co ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n the i r f av o r o n the f al se- ar re st cl ai m , the sta te i nd em ni fi cati on cl aim nece ssar i l y f ai l ed. ) A l ong w i th h is m em or andu m i n re sponse to the de fen dan ts ’ s um m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n, F l emi ng sub m i tte d new ev i dence ob tained afterthe cl ose o fdi sco ve r y . Thi s ev i den ce w as co m pi l ed bya pr ev i o us l y no ndisc l ose d witness, M r. H ar m on Cook, a pri vate i nvest i gator, wh o had take n sever al photo gr aphs ofr el evantl oca tion s a n d cond uc ted a re- creation of D ep ut y Tu rner’s ac tio n s d u rin g t h e in ve st iga tio n . C o o k a ve rre d th at it to o kh i m 6 mi n u t e s a n d 5 0 s e c o n d s t o c o mpl e t e a l l the action s un d ertaken by T u r ne r, beginn ing w ith Tu rner’s i ni ti alco ntact w i th Thom as T ro xeland endingwith Turner’ s disc ove ry of Fl em i ng i n the al l eyway

— tw i ce as l ong as Turner’ s e sti m ate o ftwo to t hree m i nutes. U si ng thi s e vi dence i n hi s r esponse , Fl em ing a rgued that the a ctuall ength ofTurner ’s inve sti gat i on pre cl ude d a r ea so nabl e pr o babl e ca us e det er m i na ti o n. T he d efend an ts obj ecte d to the tim eli ne ss of Fl em ing’s new l y s ubm i tte d evi dence and fi l ed a m oti on to s tr i ke8 N o. 11

- 2170 bo ththe e vi den ce i ts el fa nd the pa r ts o fFl em i ng ’ s ar g um ent that were depend ent o n that evi dence. The d ist rict cour t g ra nted the m oti on, al though i t no ted that, o ut o f an abundance o fcauti on, i t wou l d consi der the ev i dence in reach ing its sum m a ry j ud gm en t d ecision. T he cou rt gr anted the defe nd ants’ sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on ( eve n w hi l e t aking the unti m el y s ubm i tte d evi dence i nto acco u n t), hol ding that quali fi ed i m m unity a pp l i ed t o T urne r a nd , ther ef o r e , tha tF l e mi ng ’ s c l a i ms f a i l e d. Fl em i ng now app eal s.

II. On app eal, Fl em i ng first ar gues that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed i n str i ki ng Cook ’ s a ffi davi t a nd p h oto gr aphs. The r e i s no r ea so n, ho wev er, t o a nalyze thi s i ss ue because i t would be a pu re l y s up er fi ci ale x erci se: as note d above , i n m aking i ts sum m ar y j ud gm ent ru ling, o ut o f an ab unda nc e o f ca ut i o n th e di st r i ct court cons i de r e d the ve ry evi de nc e i ts t r uc k

. We wo ul d b e h a r dpress ed to fi nd thatthe dist rict co urt abused i ts disc re ti on in excl ud i ng thi s l ate
- fi led ev i dence

— evi dence w hi ch the defe nd ants nei ther had the opportunity t o ch all en ge in discov ery nor ad d ress in the ir su m m ary j ud gm ent m oti on. But eve n consi deri ng thi s e vi dence, as th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id , Flem in g c an n otsu c c ee d on h is seco nd chal l enge on a pp eal

— a chal l enge to the di str i ct cour t’ s deci si on that the defend ants w er e e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ase d on qual i fi ed i m m unity. W e review a district cou rt’s granting of sum m ary j ud gm ent deno vo , view in g a l l f ac ts an d co n st ru in g a llN o. 11

- 2170 9 i nfer en ce s i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the no nm ov in g p ar ty
. M uhamm e d v
. Ci ty of Chic ago , 31 6 F
. 3d 680, 68 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( ci ti ng O utla w v. New k irk, 259 F. 3d 83 3, 8 36 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) )
. W e wi l l a ffi r m i f“ th e m ovant sh o ws tha t th er e i s no gen uin e di spu te a s to a ny m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tle d to j ud gm ent a s a m atter of l aw . ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Se cti on 1 983 al l ows ci ti zens w hose co nsti tu tio nal ri ghts have been vi ol ate d b y pu bl i c offi ci al s to su e t h ose offic ials in t h eir ind ivid u al c ap ac it i e s. Se eJe nki ns v. Keat i ng, 14 7 F
. 3d 577, 58 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)
. In thi s ca se, F l e mi nga l l eg e s tha tT urne r v i o l a t e d h i s F o ur th Am e nd

m en t r i g htt o b e fr ee fr o m unr ea so nabl e searches a nd sei zure s byar re sting F l em i ng witho ut pro babl e ca use. Turner re sponds that he had pro babl e ca u se to ar re st Fle m in g or, ata m i ni m um , thathe was e nti tl ed to quali fi ed im m unity. W hen, as her e, the defe nd ants have ra i sed a quali fi ed im m unity defense to a f al se- ar re st cl ai m , “w e w i l l re vi ew to deter m i ne i f th e o ffi cer ac tu al l y ha d p r o babl e ca us e o r, i fthe r e was no probabl e ca use, wh ethera re aso nabl e o ffi cercould have m ist ak en ly b elie ve d th at p ro b ab le cau se e x ist ed .” H um phrey v . St as zak, 14 8 F
. 3d 719, 72 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) (citations om itted ).

A
. Pr obab l e Cause W e fi rs t add re ss the i ssue ofwh etherTurnerhad prob ab l e ca u se to arr es t F lem in g. Ind ee d , i f T u rn er ac tu ally did have pro babl e cause to arr estFl em i ng, “then a Four th10 N o. 11

- 2170 A m endm ent cl ai m f or f al se ar re st is f or ecl ose d.” Ho lm es v. Village of Hoffm an E st ate, 51 1 F. 3d 673, 679-80 (7th Cir. 2007 ) ( ci ti ng M or

f i n v. C ity of

E. Chi cago , 34 9 F
. 3d 989, 997 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) )
. “A poli ce o ffi cerh as probabl e ca use to a r r es t when, a t th e m o m en t th e dec i si o n i s m ade , the f acts and ci rcum sta nces w i thi n herkno w l edge a nd o f w hi ch she has r eas onabl y t rust w or thy info rm ati on woul d war r an t a pr ude nt per so n i n be l i ev i ng th at the su sp ec t h ad co m m itt ed or w as co m m itt in g a n offe n se .” Q ian v. Ka utz , 1 6 8 F
. 3 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t at i o ns o m i tt ed)

. Thi s st an dar d “ does notr equi r e th atthe offi cer ’ s be l i efbe cor re ct o r eve n m or e l i kelytr ue than f al se, so l ong as i t i s r eas onabl e. ” Id. ( ci ti ng Texa s v. Br own , 460 U
. S. 730, 742 (1983 ))
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rth eld th a t itco u ld n ot“d efin itiv ely st at e t h at p ro b ab le c au s e e x i s t ed as a m at te r of law .” The cour t no ted two pi eces o f t h e fa ctualr eco rd that w er e par ti cul ar l y pr obl em ati c to Turner ’ s probabl e-c ause d et er m i nati on: fi rs t, thatH al ei gh Tro xelte sti fi ed at her depo si ti o n that sh e ha d r epo r te d t o Turne r tha t th e i ntrude rwas wea r i nga l i g ht

- co l ore d t

- sh i r t, b utF l emi ng w as w ear i ng a dark- col or ed t- shi rtwh en he was appreh en d ed ; an d se c on d , t h a t Flem in g h ad a d og w ith h im when Tur ne r fi r sts i g ht ed hi m i n th e a l l ey way, b utno ne of th e Tr o xe l s m en ti o ne d the pr es en ce o fa do ga t th e tim e t h e s u sp ec t b ro ke in t o th eir h ou se . Despit e the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ret i cence to do so , Turner ask s us to hol d that pr obab l e ca use e xi ste d as a m att er o fl aw. I t i s o fc o ur se t rue th at we may a ffi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t “o n a ny g r o und tha t finds s uppo r t i n theN o. 11

- 2170 11

Fl em i ng a s s er t s that“the c our t ’ s l eg al det er m i nat i on of 3 q u alified im m u nity m u st be d eferred w he n th ere a re triab le i ss u e s o f fa c to n th e r e a s o n a b l e n e ss o f t h e p o l i c e o ffi c e r ’s co n d u ct to aw a it a ju ry d et er m in a tio n o f th e d isp u te d fac t[s] . . . w h ic h in fo rm s th e c o u rt ’s d ec isi o n o n qu a lifi ed im m u n ity .” (co n tin u ed ...) re c or d.” R oland v. Langlois , 9 4 5 F
. 2 d 9 5 6 , 9 6 2 n . 1 1 ( 7th Cir
. 19 91) ( ci ta tio n s o m i tte d). But w e typi cal l y r ese rv e a furtherexpl or ati on o fthe f actu al r eco rd f ori nstance s i n whi ch“ w e d o no t spe ci fi ca l l y f o l l o w the r ea so ni ng ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
. ” Id. H er e, i n o pi ni ngabo utthe lack of ex istenc e of p robab le cause , t h e d istri ct cou rt m er el y c i ted the two f actualdi scr epanci es note d above ; i td i d n o te x p o u n d o n th e i r s i g n i fi c a n c e . R a th e r, the di st r i ctc o ur t spe ntthe maj o r i tyo fi ts tim e an al y zing T u rn er ’s q u alifie d im m u n ity d efe n se , w h ich u l t i m at ely l ed to the sam e s um m ar y j ud gm ent o utc om e. Because w e be l i eve thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s qualified i m m unity ho l di ngmay be a ffi r m ed o n i ts f ace, a nd thus tha t th e g r an t i n go fs u mma r y j u d g me n twa s p r o p e r, we d e c l i ne T u rn er ’s in vit at ion to d ist u rb th e d ist ric t c o u r t ’s d ec isio n to d en y su m m ar y j u d gm en t on th e issu e o fp ro b ab le cause.

B. Qual i fi ed I m m unity T h e q u es tio n of w h et h er T u rn er ac tu ally h ad p ro b ab le cause to ar re st Fl em i ng is s epara te fro m the questi on re l a t i ngt o qua l i fi e d i mm un i t y . “ Qu a l i fi e d i mm un i ty 312 N o. 11

- 2170

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 T h a t w a s o n ce th e l a w o f ou r c ir cu it, see Fraz el l v. Fl anigan , 102 F. 3d 8 7 7, 8 8 6

- 8 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c i t a t i on s o m i t t e d) , bu th as l o n g si n c e b e e n a b a n d o n e d fo l l o w i n g th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s d ecis i on i n S au cier v . K atz , 53 3 U .S. 1 9 4 (20 0 1 ). S ee M a r s hall ex re l
. G os se ns v. Tes ke, 284 F. 3d 765, 772 ( 7th Cir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “[ E]ven in ca ses in w hich the q u estion of qu alifie d i m m u nity is f actuall y in tertwined w ith the quest ion ofw hetheroffic ers vi ol at ed the Four th Am en d m en t .
. . , j udges m us ts t i l l m ake an im m uni t y de t er m i nat i on s epa ra t e f ro m the j ur y’ s fi ndi ng on wheth er t he offi c er s vi ol at ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s c ons t i t ut i ona l r i ght s . ” ( c i t i ng S au ci er, 53 3 U .S. a t 1 9 7 )). p ro te c ts p u b lic off icia ls fro m lia b i l i t y for d am ag es if th eir acti ons did notvio lat e cl ear l y e stabl i shed ri ghts ofwh i ch a r eas onabl e per son w ou l d have know n. ” C atli n v. City of W he at on , 5 74 F
. 3d 36 1, 3 65 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 9) ( ci ta ti o ns o mi t t e d )
. T h e r e i s n o qu e s t i o n th a tF l e mi n g ’ s c o n s t i t uti onal rig h t to be fre e fro m ar re st w i thout probabl e ca use w as cl ear l y e stabl i sh ed a t the ti m e o fthe i nci dent. H um ph rey, 14 8 F
. 3d at 725 ( ci ti ng Bakerv. M cColl an , 44 3 U .S. 13 7, 14 2 (1 97 9); Gers t e i n v . Pugh , 42 0 U.S
. 10 3, 11 1 ( 1975 ) )
. Yet “the cor re spon ding doctr i ne o fqual i fi ed i m m unity forpol i ce o ffi cer s has al so l ong been re cog ni zed. ” Id. ( ci ti ng Pie rs on v. Ray, 38 6 U.S
. 54 7, 55 5- 58 ( 1967 ) )
. That co rr esp on d ing doct rine pro vi des thata defe nd ant i s enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity in a f al sear r es t ca se when, i f th er e i s no pr o babl e ca us e, “a reas o nabl e o ffi cerco uld have m ist ak en l y b el i eve d that pr obabl e ca use e xi sted

. ” Id. ( ci ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. Thu s, a s l o ng as Turner re aso nabl y, albei t possibl y m i sta kenl y, bel i eve dN o. 11

- 2170 13 th at pro babl e ca use e xi ste d to ar re st Fl em i ng, then T u rn er is en tit led to qu alifie d im m u n ity
. Id. T h is sta nd ar d i s o ften dubbed “ar guabl e p ro b able cause. ” Id. ( ci tat ions om i tte d). A rguabl e pr obab l e ca use i s e stabl i s h e d “ wh e n ‘ a r e a s o n ab l e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n th e s a me ci rcum st an ces and w i th the sa m e know l edge a nd posses si ng the sa m e know l edge a s th e offi ceri n questi on couldhave r eas ona b l y b el i eve d that pr obab l e ca use exi ste d i n l i gh t ofwell

- est abl i shed l aw . ’ ” Id. ( quo ting G o l d v . Ci tyo

f Mi a mi, 121 F. 3d 1442 , 1445 ( 11th Cir. 1997)). Inth is c a s e th er e w as ce rt ain ly a rg u ab le p ro b ab le c au se . Th e u n d isp u te d ev id e n c e sh ow ed th at w ith in se ve n m in u te s o f be in g in for m ed of a p os sib le b re ak -in and assa ult, Turnerspot ted Fl em i ng i n an al l eyway approxi m ate l y o ne- hal fblo c k fro m the cri m e s cene. F l emi ngw as th e o nl y pe r so n in the a r ea a nd he s ubs ta nti al l y matc he d the de sc r i pti o n o fthe i nt r ude r tha t o ne ofthe vi c tim s had gi ven t o Turner

— he was w ear i ng a base bal l cap, t- shi rt, and c am ou fl age car go shor ts. Fr om thi s e vi dence, a pol i ce o ffi cerco uld have r eas onabl y, i fm i sta kenl y, bel i eve d that pr obab l e cau se exis ted to ar re st Fl em i n g. Thi s i s t rue eve n i fH al ei gh had described Turner ’ s t
- shi rtas “l i ght- col or ed” bec ause w itn es se s o fte n h av e m in or d et ails inc or re c t. SeeCa tl in , 5 74 F
. 3 d a t3 6 5

- 6 6 ( a f f i r mi n gth e g r a n to fqu a l i fi e d i mm un ity to p oli ce offi cers on a f alse -arrest clai m w he re m i norv ar iati ons exi ste d between the descri pti on g i ven to the o ffi cer s an d the ac tualappeara nce o fthe suspect ar re ste d, and stat i ng tha t t h e o ffi cer s were “r equi re d to show onl y the reaso na bleness o ftheir b el i eftha t th e14 N o. 11

- 2170 perso n theyar re ste d w as th e p er son they w er e s eek i ng; th e y [ we ] r e n o tr e q u i r e d t o s h o w th a tth e y kn e w w ith ce rt aintythat the p erson t he y arrested w as th e pe rso n the y wer e se ek i ng ”)
. S i g ni fi cantl y, b efo r e ar r es ting F l e mi ng, T urne r c o nt a c t e d s t a t e ’ s a t t o r ne y Lu c k man and rel aye d this i nfo rm ati on t o hi m . Luckm an ag re ed that, b as ed on the f acts Turnerpre sente d, Turner had probabl e ca use t o ar re st Fl em i ng. Fl em i ng r esponds t h at quali fi ed i m m unity i s inapp ro pri ate bec ause th e e vi dence supports the concl usi on that Turner f abr i cate d evi dence to ga i n the r equi si te pr o babl e ca us e to ar r es t F l emi ng . S pec i fi ca l l y, F l emi ng claim s tha t C ook’s i nv estigation rev e a le d that Tu rner’s i nvest i gat i on t oo k s eve n m i n u te s i nstea d ofthe tw o to th re e m in u te s t h at T u rn er cla im ed , th atH ale igh ’s t es tim ony shows that the per petra torwas w ear i ng a “l i ghtc ol or ed” t- shi rt, and that Turner coul d not hav e see n Fl em i ng walk i ng hi s dog i n the al l eyway fro m Turner’s posi ti on o n Fl em i ng’ s por ch, as Fl em i ng had sai d. W e t ake the l att erpoi nt fi rs t. Con tr ar y to Fl em i ng’ s a rgum ent, Turnerneve r tes ti fi ed that he was o n F lem ing’ s po r chwhenTurne r s aw F l emi ngi n the al l eyway; r ather, Turn er te sti fi ed that he not i ced Fle m in g a s h e “ w as ge tt in g re ad y t o lea ve .” Fr om a p os it i o n j us ta fe w fe e ta wa y i n F l e mi ng ’ s dr i v e way

— w h e re Tu r ne r ’ s c r ui s e r wa s p a r k ed

— T u rnerco uld e asi l y hav e no ti ce d F l emi ngwal k i ngi n th e a l l ey way “ a l i tt l e to the so u th ” o f T u rn er ’s o w n loc at ion . Th u s, th er e i s n o e viden ce c al l i ngi nt o que st i o n Tu r ne r ’ s st at ementtha t he saw Fl em i ng walk i ng hi s dogi n the al l eyway.N o. 11

- 2170 15 The di spari tyi n t i m e ( two t o thr ee min ut es v er su s se ve n mi nut es ) a nd the t- sh i r t co l o r a r e al so i ns uffi ci en t to save Fl em i ng’ s ca se f ortwo r eas on s. Fir st, to sho w that Turner f abr i cate d evi dence, Fl em i ng nee d ed to prese nt e vi dence thatTurnerdel iber ate l y s ubm i tte d f al se t es ti m o ny or r ec k l es sly di sr eg ar ded th e truth. Galb r ai t h v. Cnty. of San ta C la ra , 30 7 F
. 3d 1119 , 11 26 ( 9th Cir
. 200 2) (qu oting Hervey v. E stes , 65 F. 3d 784, 78 9- 90 ( 9th Ci r. 19 95) )
. But Turner tes ti fi ed that the tw o- to- thre em i n u te ti m e- fra m e that he ascr ibed to hi s invest i gat i on w as an “e sti m ate , ” l eav in g pl enty ofr oo m f oran a ctual tim e pe riod th at w as a few m inu tes gre a t e r . A nd there i s no e v i de nc e tha t Tu r ne r de l ib e r a t e l y f a l s i fi e d o r re ckl e s s l y di s r e g a r de d the p e r pe tr ato r ’ s de s c r i pt i o n. S e c o nd , eve n i fTurnerhad f abr i cat ed e vidence, thati s no t enough; r ather, the f al si fi cati ons m ust be “ ‘ m ate ri al ’ to the fi nd i ngo fp r o b ab l e c a us e. ” Id. ( quoti ng Hervey, 65 F
. 3d at7 89 ) )
. And the t es t i s ano bj ec ti ve o ne for the c ou rt : w e a sk w h et h er “t h e o f f i c e r’s be h av ior [in fals ifyi ng the evidence] has an effect on the ul ti m ate i ssu e” of w h et h er th e o ffice r m ad e a rea so n ab le p ro b ab le c au se d et er m in at ion
. Hervey, 65 F. 3d at 789- 90. N ei ther th e claim ed disp arity in th e t-s hirt color, nor the l ong er, a lb e i ts t i l l e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y ab b r e v i a t e d , l e n g th o ft i me betw een the ass au lt and seeing Flem ing, affects the arguabl e pr obab l e ca use a nal ysi s. Ind eed, e ven ifTurner had falsifi ed hi s t est i m ony, bec ause Fl em i ng’ s a tti re subst anti al l y matc he d Hal ei g h’ s des cr i pti o n a nd F l emi ng was the o nl y pe r so n wi th i n o ne b l o ckof the c r i m e sc en e w i t h inse ve n m in u te s o f th e a lleg ed cr im e, T u rn er st ill16 N o. 11

- 2170

In ch allen g ing arg u ab le p ro b a b l e cau se, F lem ing also p oin ts 4 to the f actthathe was w alki ng a do g w hen spo tt ed b y Tu rner. B u t the p ro xim ity o f F lem ing ’ s ho u se to t h e s cen e w ou ld have l e fth i m pl e nty oft i m e t o fl e e the Tr ox e l s ’ h ou s e , ret urn t o hi s o wn h ou s e , di s c ov e r that hi s do g ne e de d t o be wal ke d, an d the n l ea ve hi s ho us e with the dog

— all bef ore Turn erno t i c ed h i m wal ki ng i n the al l ey way. Bes i des the phon e c al l pl ac ed t o Luc km an, Tur ne r t ook the 5 add it ional precauti onary st e p o fc on duc t i nga“ s how

- up , ” w here H ale igh Troxel posit ivel y identi fie d F le m ing as the i ntruder. B u t the sho w -up occu rred after b oth T u rn er’s p ro b ab le cau se determ inat io n a nd Flem ing’ s arres t; the ref ore, i t was not part ofthe s equence ofevents that gave ri se to the all eged harm i n th i s c a s e a n d we wi l l n o tc o n s i de r i t ino u r i n q u i r y . Ho weve r, ha d the a rre s tt ake n pl ac e aft erHal ei gh’ s pos i t i ve i dentificat i on ther e w ou ld certain ly h av e b een p ro b ab le cau se t o a rr es tFl em i ng. c ou ld h av e re as on ab ly b el i e v e d th at h e h ad p ro b ab le cause to ar re st Fl em i ng. 4 W e also n ote th at T urn er’s act in call ing state ’s attorn e y C ar ey L u c km an goe s a lon g w ay to w ar d so lid ifyi ng hi s qual i fi ed i m m unity defense. A s we have 5 sta ted be f or e, “[ c ]on su l ti ng a pros ecuto r m ay not gi ve an o ffi cerabs ol ute i m m unity fro m being sued f orf al se ar re st, but i t g oes f arto es tabl i sh q u ali fi ed i m m unity. Oth e r wi s e th e i n c e n t i v e f o r o ffi c e r s t o c o n s u l tp r o s ec utors

— a va l uabl e s cre en ag ai nst f al se ar re st

— w oul d be gr eat l y di m i ni shed. ” K ijo nk a v. Seitz ing er, 36 3 F
. 3d 645, 64 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. U n d e r th e s e c i r c u msta nces, Turnerhad ar guabl e pr obab l e ca use a n d wasN o. 11

- 2170 17 enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity. In turn, S heri ffM cC ar ty and Livi ngsto n County ar e e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm en t o n th e in d em n ifica tio n cla im s. See 74 5 I l l

. Co mp. St at. 10/2- 109 ( “A l oca l publi c ent i ty i s no t l i abl e for a n i nj u r y r e s u l t i n gfr o m a n a c t o r o mi s s i o n o fi t s e mp loyee w he re the em p loyee i s not li able.”)

.
III. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc r et ion in gran ting th e d efend an ts’ m otion to strik e Flem ing’s u n ti m el y s ubm i tte d evi dence. A dd i ti onal l y, bec ause a re as on ab le p olic e o ffice r inT u rn er ’s p os itio n co u ld have bel i eve d that p robabl e ca use e xi ste d to ar re st F l e mi n g, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o t e r r i n g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y jud gm en t t o T u rn er on th e b as is of h is q u alifi ed i m m unity defense. Fo r these r eas ons, we A FFIRM .

3- 28- 12