FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 75 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 00 35 -WCO GEOFFREY ASHER,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee,
vers us MARK MC CLURE, Sh eri ff o f Lum

pk inCo un ty, Geo rg ia , inth ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , SERGEANT CURT DONAL DSON, in th ei r in id iv idua l capa ci ti es , INVESTIGATOR BEN NIX, DEPUTY STERLING COLE , of th e Lum pk in Co un ty Sheri ff's Depa rtment i n t he ir i nd iv idua l 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 , LIEUTENA

NT RYAN MILLER, 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 .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Defen da nt s M cCl ur e, Nix , Col e, an d Do na ld so n (c ol le ct iv el y

“ Defen da nt s” ), la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cers em

pl oyed b y th e Lum pk in Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce i n Geo rg ia , app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n fo r
su m m ary jud gm en t o n qua li fie d i m m un it y gro un ds of Ge of

frey Ashe r’s 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im s. Thi s ac ti on ari se s o utof aco nf ro nt at io n b etweenAsh er an d Def en dantCo le
on Ash er’s p ro pe rty in f

ro ntof h is ho m e. Co le cla im edth atAsh er was sp eed in g
an d i gn or in g C ol e’s at te m pt s t o m ak e a traff

ic st op , andth athe th us fol lo wed Ash er t o h is ho m e. Ash er cl ai m s t ha t h e was no t s pe ed in g, an d t ha t Def en da nt Co le di d n otha ve hi s emergen cy li gh ts or s ire n a ct iv at ed . In an y ev en t, a
co nf ro nt at io n e ns ue d. Atso m e p oi ntdurin g t hi s co nf ro nt at io n, Def

en da nt s McC lu re, Nix , andDon al ds on , as wel l as sev eral ot he r of fic ers , arri ve d o n t he
sc en e, an d As he r was arre st ed . Defen da nt s t he n s earc he d t he tru ckAsh er h ad 2be endri vi ng , fin di ng nu m ero us gu ns an d a m m un it io n, an d t he n e nt eredan d
se arch edAsh er’s h om e, as well as aCo rv et te th atwas p ark edinfro ntof As he r’s pr op erty . After a ll of t he se search es , Defen da nt s o bt ai ne d asea rch warran t an d
co nduc te d a n a dd it io na l s earc h o f th e h ou se . Ash er’s § 19 83 cla im

ass ert s t ha t Def

en da nt s’ ent ry

an d s earc h o f hi s h om e
an d v eh ic le s wi th ou t a warran t, an d i n t he ab se nc e o f an y ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , vi ol at edhi s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Def en da nt s’
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y with re fere nc e to th ei r
en try andsea rch of As he r’s ho m e an d t he Co rv et te , ho ld in g t ha t d is pu te d i ss ue s o f
m at eri al factrem ai ne d a s t o t ho se is su es . Defen da nt s ap pe al ed
. 1 2 DISCUSS ION W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm

un it y de no vo , res ol vi ng all is su es of m at eri al factinfav orof t he pl ai nt iff . Cren sh aw v. Li st er, 5 56 F.3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Qua li fie d imm un it y sh ie ld s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s fr om li ab il it y for civ il da m ag es for

to rts
The district cour

t granted in par

t Defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt, finding 1 that they wer e entitled to qualified immunity as to their sea

rch of Asher’ s pick-up truc k following his arre st, and also that Def endant Nix was entitled to qualified immunity as to his application for a sea rch w arr ant. Asher

does not appe al the district cour t’s qualified immunity

rulingas to these claims. Interlocutory

appea l is available fr om the denial of qua lified immunity defe nses. 2 Mitchell v. Forsy

th, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). 3co m

m it te d wh il e p erfo rm in g d is cret io na ry du ti es un le ss th ei r co nduc t v io la te s a cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh t.” Id. As law en fo rcem en t of fic ers , Defen da nt s wer e act in g a s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s, an d t he pa rti es ag ree t ha t th ey were ac ti ng withi n t he sco pe of t he ir d is cret io na ry au th or it y . Thu s, t o de te rm in e whe th er the y

are p ro te ct edby qua li fie d i m m un it y , we m

us t co ns id er whe th er the ev id en ce, t ak eninth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Ash er, s up po rts a
co nc lu si on th atDefen dant s v io la te d As he r’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts an d, i f so , whe th er tho se rig ht s wer e cl earl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th e v io la ti on . Id. at 12 90
. Defen da nt s cl ai m

th at , fol lo win g As he r’s arre st , Defen da nt s M cCl ur e, Co le , an d Do na ld so n e nt eredAsh er’s h ou se to co nduc t a p ro te ct iv e swe ep , whi ch las te d
no m or e th anten m in ut es an d was co ns ti tu ti on al un de r Mary la ndv. Bu ie , 49 4 U.S. 32 5 (1 99 0) (pe rm it ti ng qu ic k a ndli m it edsearch of t he pre m is es fol lo win g a rres t fo r sa fety reas on s) . Defen da nt s co nt en d t ha t, fo ll owi ng th e in it ia l p ro te ct iv e
swe ep , th ey

co nduc te d am or e th or ou gh sea rch of t he res id en ce, b uton ly after
an ot he r of

fic er o n t he sce ne rep res en te d t o the m th atAsh er h adco ns en te d t o t he
se arch . They arg ue th atth ey are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y as t o t hi s s earc h be cau se th ey

reas on ab ly bel ie ve d t ha t co ns en t h adbe enob ta in ed
.

4Inm ak in g t hi s ar gu m en t, Defe nd an ts fai l t o t ak e th e fac ts inth e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to Ash er. As t o t he pro te ct iv e swe ep , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t [w]hil e d efen da nt s h av e p res en te d s worn s ta te m en ts in di cat in g t ha t th ei r pr ot ect iv e swe ep las te d n o m or e th antenm inut es , pl ai nt iff ha s pr es en te d h is own swo rnst at em en ts an d t es ti m on y , as wel l as th os e o f ne ig hb or s an d e y ewitne ss es , th at‘ fro m th e p oi ntof t he go ve rn m en t’s fir sten try int o p la in ti ff’s h om e wit ho uta warra ntor c on se nt , and du rin g t he ti m e p la in ti ff was inha nd cu ffed[si c] in apa tro l ca r, th e ag en ts onth e sc en e, in cl ud in g d efen da nt s M cCl ur e, Don al ds on , Col e an d M il le r were c on si st en tl y an d c on ti nu ou sl y

go in g i n a ndou t o f pl ai nt iff’s ho m e an d v eh ic le s fo r a p eri odof a t l eas t thr ee h ou rs .’ (Dis t. Ct . Orde r at17 -1 8 (c it at io ns an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . As to Defen da nt s’ arg um en t tha t the y

be li ev edAsh er h adco ns en te d t o t he sec on d s earc h o f th e ho us e, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Defen da nt s’ con te nt io n i s b as edup onde fen da nt s’ ver si on of t he fact s, wh ic h c on si st s o f anin it ia l s earc h t he y ch arac te riz e as a pr ot ect iv e swe ep , fol lo wedby a com pl et el y sep arat e, la te r se arch of th e h om e, du rin g wh ic h d efen da nt s M cCl ur e, Nix , Col e, an d Don al ds on be li ev edpl ai nt iff ha d g iv enco ns en t. As f

ul ly set f orth ab ov e, th es e fac ts are h ot ly dis pu te d b y way of c on tra di ct ory

swo rn te st im on y fro m th e p art ie s an d wi tn es se s. Where , as h ere, the de te rm in at io n o f fac tu al is su es tu rn s o n the cred ib il it y of e nt ire ly co nt rad ic to ry

swo rntes ti m on y , th e co urt ca nn otfin d t ha t d efen da nt s are e nt it le d t o qua li fie d i m m un it y . (Dis t. Ct . Orde r at20 .) The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er n ot edth atAsh er i ns is ts he ne ve r pr ov id edco ns en t fo r th e se arch , andth atDefen da nt s ap pe aredun cl ear a s t o wh ic h of fic er t ol d t he m

su ch co ns en t h adbe engi ve n.

5On t hi s re co rd , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g Def en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n qua li fie d i m m un it y gro un ds as t o t he sea rch of As he r’s
res id en ce, as ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factrem ai n a s t o t hi s i ss ue . As t o t he sea rchof the Co rv et te , Defen da nt s ar gu e th atth ey were p erm it te d to sea rch th e v eh ic le un de r th e “ au to m ob il e ex cep ti on ” to th e Fo urth Am en dm en t’s warr an t re qu ire m en t, wh ic h p erm it s t he po li ce t o s earc h ave hi cl e witho uta warra ntif i t i s “ read il y m ob il e an d p ro babl e cau se ex is ts to be li ev e it
co nt ai ns co nt rab an d.” Pen ns y lv an iav. Lab ro n, 5 18 U.S. 93 8, 9 40 (19 96 ). The fir strequi rem en t, tha t the car b e rea di ly m ob il e, is sat is fie d s o l on g a s t he car

“ reas on ab ly app ear[ s] to be cap ab le of f un ct io ni ng .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W at ts , 32 9 F.3 d 1 28 2, 1 28 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . It i s al so well
es tabl is he d t ha t “ no sp eci al ex ig en cy is requi redbe y on d ash owi ng of t he m ob il it y of th e au to m ob il e.” Id . at 1 28 5. The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y fou ndth atth e fi rs t el em en t o f th e au to m ob il e
ex cep ti on was s at is fie d, as no th in g i n t he fact s p ro vi de d areas on to be li ev e th at th e Co rv et te was n ota func ti on in g aut om ob il e cap ab le of m ob il it y . Howev er, we fin d t ha t d is pu te d que st io ns of m at eri al factrem ai n a s t o wh ethe r Defen dant s h ad pr ob ab le cau se to sea rch th e Co rv et te . Prio r to th e se arch of As he r’s ho us e, Defen da nt s h adno way

of l in ki ng Ash er t o t he ve hi cl e p ark edou ts id e. Taki ng th e

6fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Ash er, n on e o f th e Defen da nt s o r an y ot he r la w
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer r anth e li cen se pl at e ta gs or o th erwi se att em pt edto de te rm in e who own edth e Co rv et te or t o wh om itwas re gi st ered . Nor d idth ey lo okin si de th e caran d s ee an yth in g t ha t wo ul d g iv e th em reas on to be li ev e th atth ey wou ld fin d c on traba ndinth e car . It was on ly after t he warran tl es s en try int o t he ho us e, at whi chpo in t Def

en da nt s fo un d t he ke y s t o the Co rv et te as we ll as o th er num ero us fir earm s, tha t the y

de ci de d t o s earc h t he car. Bec au se di sp ut edis su es of m at eri al factrem ai n c on cern in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he sea rchof b oth t he ho us e an d t he Co rv et te on th e p ro pe rty, we affirm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n qua li fie d i m m un it y gro un ds
. 3 AFFIRMED.

Def endants a lso arg

ue that a se arc h of the Corve tte was a uthorized under the r ationale 3 of Michig an v. L ong , 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983), which pe rmits the police to search a ve hicle if they have a rea sonable be lief that “the suspect is dang erous a nd the suspect may

g ain immediate control of we apons.” The y argue that bec ause the Corvette wa s reg istered to someone other than Asher, the y

had re ason to believe that theremight be a nother pe rson on the pre mises who could acc ess a we apon in the Corvette a nd threa ten the off

icer s. Howeve r, nothingin the rec ord indicates that De fenda

nts knew the c ar be longe d to someone else be fore they sear ched it, nor wer e any fac ts presente d that would g ive rise to a r easona ble belief that there was a

dang erous person on the pr emises. 7