F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT N ovembe r 1, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Al ar có n , Un i t ed States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1281 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 01 28 0 C V-ORL-1 9- JGG WAYNE FREEMAN, WAYNE’ S W ORLD, INC., D oin g bu sin es s a s H er oe ’ s N igh tc lub , Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us TOW N OF EATO NVILLE, FLO RIDA, J. M URPHY, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 1, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and A L A RC Ó N , C ir cu it Judg es . *Her oe’s ha s also been spe lled “He ro’s” in the briefs, but we will refe r to t h e est ablishment as 1 Her oe’s in this opinion. 2 PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff s W ay ne F re em anand W ay

ne ’ s W or ld, I nc . ( “ Pl ai nti ff s” ) sue d th e Tow n of Eatonv ille, F lorida and J. Murphy , an officer in the Eatonville Police D ep ar tm en t ( “ E PD ”) , a lle gin g th at P la int if fs suf fe re d dam ag es f

ro m ( 1) f al se arr es t an d fa ls e im

pr is on m en t, (2 ) fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io ns , and(3) ne gl ig en ce. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm ent f

or the T ow n of

E at onvi lle and O f f i c e r M u r p h y ( “D e f

e n d a n t s ” ) . F i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e a f f i rm.
I. B ACK GROUND
Pl ai nti ff W ay ne F re em anis the sol e ow ne r of c o- Pl ai nti ff

W ay ne ’ s W or ld, Inc. , which does b usiness under the nam e of H eroe’ s Nightclub (“ He roe’ s”). 1 He roe’ s is a night club with a m axim um capacity of 700 peop le. The club offers
m usi c an d danc ing f

or it s patr ons, and a

ppr oxi m at el y

70 p er ce nt o f its inc om e is d er i v edfr o m

th e s al e o f a l co h o l co n s u m edo n -s i t e. On we ek en dn i g h t s , He ro e’s ope ns i ts d oor s a t 11 :00 p. m . and o pe rate s un til 4:0 0 a . m . or 5:0 0 a . m . H er oe ’ s is th e o n l y n i g h t cl ub i n th e a re a t h at o p er at es p as t2 : 0 0 a. m . An dal th o u g h He ro e’s3

face s a m ainly

com m ercia l street, im

m ediately behind th e club is a residential neighb orhood . In the five m onth s before the incident at issue here, law en fo rc em en t w as c al le d to H er oe ’ s a bout six to ei ght

ti m es to re spon d to f

igh ts o r other distu rbances, includin g gun shots fired near the club. Since the incident at iss ue he re , lawe nf

or ce m en t ha s r es pond ed

to se ve ra l othe r inc ide nts a t H er oe ’ s, inc lud ing one in w hic h so m eo ne w as sho t. On Fr i d ay n i g h t/ Sa tu rd ay m o rn i n g o f L ab o r D ay we ek en di n 1 9 9 9 , He ro e’s attracte d a large c rowd. In prepar ation for the holid ay we ekend -- during which H er oe ’ s anti ci pa te d in cr ea se d c ust om er tr af fi c -- F re em an“be ef

ed up” se curi ty

by hiring 15 private security guards (norm ally

12) and five off-duty , uniform ed police officer s (norm ally

two or three ). A round 2: 00 a.m ., Of ficer Murphy and other E PD of fi ce rs arr ive d a t H er oe ’ s to r es pond to a dis tur

banc e. A cc or din g to the sworn statem ents of three E PD officer s who we re on the scene, the EP D sum m one d a t l ea st thr ee oth er lawe nf or ce m en t a ge nc ie s to a ssi st i n r es pond ing to

“ several phy sical and verbal disturbances, including ones with gunfire” that had broken ou t in and aroundHe roe’ s. B y this tim e, 200-300 patrons had entered He roe’ s, and a line of people w aiting to enter, accor ding to Free m an, w as

“ wrap pe d a ro un d t he bl oc k.”Only

Fr eema n has bee n deposed in this case . The pa rties neve r conta cted or

deposed Mur

phy 2 or the other

office rs or witnesses to the club’s closing . The only testimonial evidence offe red at the summary jud g me n t s ta g e w a s F r e e ma n ’ s d e p o s it io n , O f

f ic e r M ur p h y ’ s in c id e n t r e p o rt a

n d s w o rn char g ing a ffidavit, and the sworn statements of two other EPD office rs who we re at the scene . For the p u rp o s es o f summary judgme nt we -- as the district cour t did -- construe the fa cts in the light most favora

ble to Fr eema

n. 4 T o qu el l the dis tur

banc e, Murp hy

r ep or te d th at he w as or de re d by

his supe ri or to cl ose the doo rs of

H er oe ’ s and t o di spe rs e the c ro w d. O ff ic er Murp hy 2
wa s fam iliar w ith Freem an and Her oe’ s because Fr eem an had previousl y hired Mur phy to pe rf orm of f- duty se curi ty a t the c lub . F re em anstate d th at he f ir st be cam e aw ar e of

the de ci sio n to shu t do wn H er oe ’ s whe n he he ar d M ur phy closing the club’ s exit doo rs. Murphy then tried to close the front doors where Fr ee m anw as pos iti one d to c oll ec t c ove r ch ar ge s. Of ficer Murphy told Freem an he wa s closing He roe’ s. F reem an then placed him self so that Murphy

could no t shut th e club’ s doors. Fre em an asserts that Of ficer Murphy wa s “ out of control, y elling” and “ try ing to slam the door.” Free m an contrasts his own condu ct as com pletely in control. Fr eem an said that th e c ro wdn ea re s tth e d o o r b eg an t o s u rg e t o wa rdth e e n tra n ce du ri n g Fr ee m an ’s int er ac tio n w ithMurp hy . Murp hy thr eate ne d to arr es t F re em anif F re em andid

not ste p a sid e fr om

the c lub ’ s do or s. F re em an r es pond ed

to Mur phy , “ D o w ha t y ou got to do.” F reem an claim s he then com plied with Murphy ’ s request to step away fr om the doo r; O ff

ic er Murp hy the n arr es te d F re em an .5

Mur phy too k F re em anto Mur

phy ’ s patr ol c ar

w he re F re em ansa t f

or one to tw o ho ur s whil e the of

fi ce rs dis pe rs ed

the c ro w d. F re em anw as c harg ed w ith re sis tin g an of

fi ce r w ith out

vio le nc e, in vio la tio n of

F lor ida S ta tut es se ct ion 843. 02. L at er , the c harg es w er e dr oppe d. H er oe ’ s r em ai ne d c los ed f or the re m ai nde r of

that ni ght

( one and a

ha lf to tw o ho ur s) . Whe n H er oe ’ s r eo pe ne d th e ne xt n igh t, F re em anc ont en ds, the c lub a ttr ac te d asm al le r- than- expe ct ed c ro w d. Pl ai nti ff s su ed O ff ic er Murp hy and the T ow n of

E at onvi lle , a sse rt ing liabilityfor f

alse arr est and false im

prisonm ent, negligence, and constitu tional vio la tio ns. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or D ef en dants , concludin g that Off

icer Mur phy had probable cause to arre st Free m an, that Mur phy w as e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty , and tha t the T ow n of E at onvi lle c oul d not be liable because Murphy did no t violate Freem an’ s rights. T he district court la te r de nie d P la int if

fs ’ m oti on f

or r eh eari ng.
II. D I S CUS S I ON
O n a ppe al , P la int if

fs a sse rt s th at

que sti ons of

m at er ia l f

ac t e xis t a bout
w he the r Mur

phy and the oth er

E PD of fi ce rs w er e au tho ri ze d to arr es t F re em anand close He roe’ s. P laintiffs argue m ainly for three question s of fac t: (1) w hether6

the re w as gun fi re ; ( 2) w he the r the re w er e “ dis tur banc es ” ar ound

the c lub ; and ( 3)
w he the r the c ro w d w as unr uly . T he dis tr ic t c ourt - - pur porte dly c onstru ing the facts in Plaintiffs’ favor - - found no genu ine issues of m aterial f act and granted su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Defen da nt s. W e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing the sam e standard s a s adis tr ic t c ourt. K ing sland v . Ci ty of Mi am i, 382 F . 3d 1 220, 1225 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . W e vie wthe e vid en ce and a ll fa ct ua l i nf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Pl ai nti ff

s and r es olv e al l r ea sona

ble doubts about

the fa ct s inP la int if

fs ’ f av or . I d. a t 12 26. B ec au se P la int if fs w oul d be ar

the bur de n of pr oo f attri al , Pla in ti ffs m us t “ go be y on d t he pl ead in gs an d b y [th ei r] own af fi davit s, or

by the de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and a dm iss ion s on file, ” show that genuine issu es of m aterial f act exist to be resolved at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(e) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catre tt, 106 S.C t. 2548, 2553 (198 6). W e ar e satisfied that the dist rict court construed the record f acts in Plaintiffs’ favor. A fter review , w e see no genuine issu es of m aterial f act sufficie nt to defeat sum m ary j udgm en t.Fr ee m an ’s cl ai m s fo r f al s e arr es tan d

fa l s e i mp ri s o n m en tar e “ d i s t i n gu i s h ab l e i nt erm i n o l o gy 3 only .” Johnson v. W einer , 19 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 1944) . We discuss these claims tog ether . 7 A . S t a t e L a wC l a i ms

Fr ee m anm ak es c la im s un de r state lawf or f al se arr es t, f

al se im pr iso nm en t, an d ne gli ge nc e. F re em anw as arr es te d f or r es ist ing an of

fi ce r w ith out

vio le nc e in 3 violatio n of Florida Statute section 843.02. Florida lawprovides, in part, that

“ [w ] hoe ve r sha ll re sis t, obs tr uc t, or opp ose any

of fi ce r . . . in the law fu l e xe cu tio n of any legal duty , w ithou t offer ing or doi ng vio lence to the person of the officer , shall be guil ty

of a m isdem eanor of the fir st degree. ” F LA . S T AT . § 8 43 .02 . To supp ort a conviction u nder section 843 .02, the state m ust prov e that O ffice r M u rp h y wa s en g ag edi n th e l aw fu l ex ec u t i o n o f al eg al du ty an dth at Fr ee m an ’s ac ts c onst itu te d ob str

uc tio n or r es ist an ce of

that l aw fu l du ty . S ly de ll v. S ta te , 792 So . 2d66 7, 6 71 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 01 ). If O ff ic er Murp hy ha d pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve that F re em anw as r es ist ing Mur phy ’ s e ff orts t o e xe cu te ale ga l du ty , the n sum m ar y j udgm ent m

ust be af fi rm ed . S ee Ci ty

of H ia le ahv. Re hm , 455 S o. 2d 4 58, 461 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 1984 ) (c onc lud ing that an of fi ce r “ is n ot l ia

ble f or f al se arr es t i f he ha s pr oba ble ca use ( or sub stanti al r ea son) to be lie ve the arr es te d pe rs on w as ac om m itt ing a8

m isd em eanor

in his pr es en ce ”) . P ro bable c au se e xis ts whe n th e fa ct s and ci rc um stanc es w ith in the of fi ce r’ s kn ow le dge , of

w hic h he ha s r ea sona

bly tr ustw orthy

inf orm at ion , w oul d c au se apr ude nt p er son to b el ie ve , und er the tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es , that the sus pe ct ha s c om m itt ed , is co m

m itt ing , or

is ab out to co m m it anof fe nse . E lli ott

v. S ta te , 597 S o. 2d 9 16, 918 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 1994 ). Whether O ffice r Murphy wa s executing a legal dutywhen he c losed Hero e’s is a cri ti cal ele m en t t o Def en da nt s’ arg um en t fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Fl or ida lawve sts m

uni ci pa lit ie s w iththe pow er to ac t t o m ai nta in o rd er

and t o quell any disturbance or disorder. S ee F LA . S T AT . § 14 . 022 (v es tin g ingov er nor pow er to “ take suc h m ea sur es and t o do a ll an d e ve ry a ct and thin g w hic h sh e or he m ay de em ne ce ssary

in or de r to p re ve nt v iol en ce . . . or to que ll vio le nc e or

any distu rbance or disorder which threatens the peace and go od order of society ”); F LA . S T AT . § 16 6. 021 (e xte ndi ng t o m uni ci pa lit ie s th e ri ght

to ex er ci se pow er s of the state , inc lud ing tho se pow er s se t ou t i n se ct ion14. 022) . F lor ida lawa lso c o mp e l s l a we n f

o r c e men to f

f i c e r s t o d i s p e r s e “ i mm e d i a t e l y an dp e a c e ab l y” crow ds which are “ unlawfully , r iotou sly , or tum ultuo usly assem bled.” F LA . S T AT . § 87 0. 04. A nd E at onvi lle O rd inanc e N o. 96- 03 m ak es it unl aw fu l f

or abus ine ss t o “kn o w i n g l y p e rmi t , a l l o wo r s u f f e r . . . [ t ]h e p l a c e o f

b u s i n e s s . . . t o b e c o me9

unreasonablydisorderly

or noisy with the prem ises so as to anno y or disturb persons off the prem ises of that place of business . . . .” Fr ee m anc ont en ds tha t hi s de posi tio n te sti m ony r eb uts the f

ac ts l ai d ou t i n the of fi ce rs ’ state m en ts a

nd c re at es iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t a bout w he the r Mur

phy an dth e o th ero ff

i ce rs we re ex ec u t i n g a l eg al du ty wh en th ey cl o s edHe ro e’s . We di sa gr ee. E ve n c onstru ing the f

ac ts i n P la int if

fs ’ f av or - - as w e m

ust - - the re is no dispu te that He roe’ s, a nigh tclub with a history of disturbances, including phy sical distu rbances and gunfire, attrac ted a large crow d late at night to an area bordere d by residences. T he officer s stated -- w ithou t contradiction -- that they we re c alled to H er oe ’ s be ca

use of r ep orts o f “ se ve ra l ph y sic al and v er ba l di sturb an ce s, in cl ud in g o ne s wi th gu nf ire .” Und is pu te d e vi de nc e sh ows th atth e cro wd assem bled out side Her oe’ s was suff iciently large and rowdy

that officer s from

at le as t fo urlaw en fo rcem en t ag en ci es to okalm os t t wo h ou rs to di sp ers e th e cro wd. A nd a lth oughF re em anstate d th at he pe rs ona lly

did not he ar gun shot s and d id n ot observe a fight, he w as unable to say that these events did n ot in fact occur. U nder the circum stances, w e conclude that sufficient undis puted evid ence exists such that a rea sonable po lice office r could believe he wa s lawf ully executing a legal du ty whe n h e cl os edHero e’s.10

Whe the r Fr ee m anobs tr

uc te d or r es ist ed O ff ic er Murp hy ’ s e ff

orts t o c los e H er oe ’ s is the se co nd e le m en t. F or the arr es t t o be law fu l, Murp hy ne ed ed onl y to h av e h adre as o n ab l e g ro u n d s t o b el i ev e t h at Fr ee m an wa s re s i s t i n g Mu rp h y’ s ef fo rt s to c los e H er oe ’ s. S ee S ta te v. D w y er , 317 S o. 2d 1 49, 150 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 197 5) . F re em anstate d th at he c ha lle nge d M ur

phy ’ s auth or ity

to cl ose the cl ub and s too d inthe doo rw ay to pr ev en t M ur

phy f ro m c los ing the doo rs . Murp hy as ke d F re em anto m ove ; he w ar ne d F re em anthat c ont inu ed int er fe re nc e w oul d re sul t i n arr es t; an d F re em anr es pond ed to Mur phy by say ing , “ D o w ha t y ou g ot t o do.” F reem an further stated that while he was e ngaged with Murphy , the c rowd at the c lub ’ s e ntr an ce m ove d inaro und the m enbe fo re oth er of fi ce rs c am e to a ssi st Mu rp hy. Under the c ircum stances, a rea sonable officer c ouldbelieve that Fre em an w as obs tr uc tin g e ff orts t o c los e the c lub . Murp hy the re fo re ha d pr oba

ble c au se to arre st Free m an. And because Murphy acted w ith probabl e cause, the arr est wa s lawf ul, and D efendants we re e ntitled to summ ary j udgm ent on Plaintiffs’ state law cl ai m s.Fr eema n, in his complaint, also char g ed Def endants with violating his r ight to equal prote ction. 4 B ut P la int if

fs did no t r a ise thi s is su e in t

he ir br ie fs be fo re thi s Co ur

t. T he e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la im i s the re fo re a

ba nd on e d. Se e Ac c e ss No w, Inc . v . So uthwe st A ir lin e s Co ., 38 5 F .3 d 1 32 4, 13 30 (1 1th Cir. 2004) (“ [ A] leg al claim or a rgument that has not bee n briefe d befor e the c ourt is deemed abandone d and its merits will not be addresse d.”). 11 B . F e d e r a l C o n s t i tu t i o n a l C l a i ms

Fr ee m an al s o co n t en d s th at h i s arre s tan dth e t emp o ra ry cl o s u re o f H er o e’s violated hi s constit ution al rights to be free f rom unreasonable search and seizure an d t o due pro ces s. W e d is ag ree. 4 1. F ourth A m en dm en t. F re em anc ont en ds h e w as de pr ive d of his F ourth Am en dm en t ri gh ts ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le sea rch an d s ei zu re wh en he was a rres te d. The di st ric t co ur t d et erm in edth atMu rp hy was en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . Q ua lif ie d im m uni ty im m uni ze s f ro m sui t po lic e of

fi ce rs w ho, w he n a ct ing w ith in the scope of their discretionary authority , do not viol ate “ clear ly established statut or y or c onst itu tio na l r igh ts o f w hic h ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d have known. ” Ro dr igu ez v. F ar re ll, 280 F . 3d 1 341, 134 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( quot ing La ssiter v. A labam a A &M U niv., B d. of T rustees, 28 F. 3d 11 46, 1149 (11t h Cir. 1 9 9 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ) . To d e t e rmi n e wh e th e r qu a l i f i e di mm u n i ty e x i s t s , we e mp l o y a tw o- ste p in qui ry . F ir st, w e de ci de w he the r Mur phy ’ s a ct s vi olate d th e co nst itu tio n. G ar

re tt v. A the ns- Cl ar

ke Co unty , G a. , 378 F . 3d 1 274, 127 8 ( 11th12

Ci r. 200 4) ( ci tin g S au ci er v. K at z, 121 S . Ct . 215 1, 215 6 ( 2001 )) . I f w e co nc lud e that no c onst itu tio na l r igh t w as vio la te d, our inquir y e nds: the n M ur

phy ha s do ne noth ing wrong und er f

ederal law. But if w e conclude that, under the assum ed fa ct s, f ed er al laww as vio la te d, w e the n c onsi de r w he the r, a t the ti m e of the inc ide nt, e ve ry

obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble pol ic e of

fi ce r w oul d have r ea liz ed the a ct s - - gi ve n t he cir cu m st an ces -- d idvi ol at e al read y cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Garre tt , 37 8 F .3dat 1 27 8- 79 . W e ar e sa tis fi ed

that O ff ic er Murp hy w as a ct ing w ith in the sc ope of his dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity w he n he arr es te d F re em anand c los ed H er oe ’ s. W e m

ust then consid er whether Murphy , in the context of the assum ed fac ts, violated Fr ee m an ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. Whe the r a de fe ndant “ ha s vi olate d a co nst itu tio na l r igh t at a ll is, of c our se , ane ce ssary

c onc om itant t o th e que sti on o f qualified imm

unity : if a def

endant has no t violated th e lawat all, he cer tainly has not vio la te d c le ar ly

e sta bli she d law . ” Ro dr igu ez , 280 F . 3d at 13 45 ( ci ta tio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). W e have w ri tte n th at “ [t ] he e xis te nc e of

pr oba ble c au se a t the tim e of arr es t . . . c onst itu te s an a bsol ute bar to a

se ct ion198 3 a ct ionf

or f al se arre st.” K ingsl and, 382 F.3d at 1226. A s we discuss ed above, Murphy hadMurp hy wo uld be e nti tle d to qu a lif ie d immun ity if he ha d on ly “ argua ble pro bab le c aus e” to 5 arr est Fr eema

n. Post v. C ity

of Ft. L auder dale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1558 (11th Cir. 1993). That is, Murphy wo uld be e nti tle d to qu a lif

ie d immun ity

if “ a re a so na ble of fi c e r c ou ld h ave be lie ve d th at pr ob a ble cause exis ted.” I d. (citation and quotation om i t t ed ). This lesser standa rd is clea rly met under the circ umstances: Murphy

had ac tual probable cause to arre st Fre eman. In the alter

native, we conclude that under the law at the time of Fr eema n’s ar rest, the pur

ported 6 un l aw f u l n e s s o f th e ar r e s t w a s n o t a l r e a dy c l e ar l y e s t a b l i s h e d ; s o O f

f i c e r M ur p h y i s d u e i m mun i ty. 13 pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st F re em an . S ee Ranki n v. E vans, 133 F . 3d 1 425, 143 5

5 (1 1thCi r. 199 8) ( not ing that “ the standard f or de te rm ini ng whe the r pr oba ble c au se ex ist s is the sam e unde r Fl or ida and f ed er al law ”) . B ec au se Murp hy ha d pr oba

ble ca use to ar re st F re em an , Murp hy

c anhave no f

ed er al li ab ili ty , and h e is d ue sum m ar y j udgm en t. 6 2. D ue Proce ss. Pla intiffs’ due process claim sim ilarly fails. In McK inney
v. P at e, w e w ro te that “ a pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s vi olatio n is not c om ple te ‘ unl es s and unti l the State f

ails to provi de due process.’ ” 20 F. 3d 15 50, 1557 (11t h Cir. 1994 ) (e n banc) (citing Ziner m on v. Burch, 110 S.Ct. 975, 983 (199 0)). Plaintiffs co uld have pur sue d r em ed ie s instate c ourt f or los t pr of its or dam ag es suf

fe re d by the c lub ’ s c los ur e. P la int if fs the re fo re suf

fe re d no pr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s vio la tio n. S ee H ortonv. Bd . of Co unty Co m m ’ rs of F la gle r Co unty , 202 F . 3d 1297 , 1300 (11th Cir. 2000) (concluding that plaintiff’ s failure to pursue state lawTo the extent Pl aintiffs asse rt a violation of substantive due pr ocess, we decline to e x tend the 7 conce pt of fundame ntal constitutional rights to enc ompass Plaintiffs’ claims. And our a naly sis of the Four th Amendment claim contr ols any cause of ac tion Fr eema

n, individually , may

bringunder the b ann e r

o f s u b s ta n ti v e d u e p r o c e s s . Se e g e n e r a ll y G r ah am v . Co nn o r , 1 0 9 S. Ct . 1 8 6 5 , 1 8 71 (1989) ( concludingin police excessive forc e ca se that “[b]ecause the Four th Amendment provides an explicit t ex t u al source of constitutional protection ag ainst this sort of phy sically intrusive g overnme ntal conduct, that Ame ndment, not the more g ener alized notion of ‘substantive due proce ss,’ must be the guide for a naly zing these c laims”).

14 cl ai m is not dis posi tiv e; F ourte en th A m en dm en t on ly r equir es that pl ai nti ff

s have oppo rtunity

to pursue relief in state courts). 7 3. Munic ipa l l ia

bil ity . E ve n w he n in div idu al town of fi ce rs are e nti tle d to imm un it y , a to wn m ig ht st il l b e li ab le if apl ai nt iff can de m on st rat e th atth e to wn h ada p o l i cy o r c u s t o m

th at l edt o a c o n s t i tu t i o n al d ep ri v at i o n . S ee Mo n el l v . De p ’t of Social Se rvs. of C ity

of N ewYork, 98 S.C t. 2018, 2037-38 (19 78) (“ [I] t is when ex ec uti on o f a gove rn m en t’ s po lic y or c ust om . . . inf lic ts the inj ur

y that the governm ent as an entity

is responsib le under § 1983 .” ). But we m ake this inqu iry onl y w he n apla int if

f ha s su ff er ed ac onst itu tio na l de pr ivatio n. S ee Ci ty of L os A nge le s v. H el le r, 106 S . Ct . 157 1, 157 3 ( 1986 ) (d et er m ini ng tha t the e xte nt t o which departm ental regulations in fringe on constit ution al rights is irrelevant when no const itutio nal injury , in fa ct, occurred). In this case, we have concluded that Pl ai nti ff s su ff er ed no c onst itu tio na l de pr ivatio n. W e ac co rd ing ly c onc lud e that the Tow n of Eatonv ille wa s entitled to s umm ary j udgm ent on Plaintiffs’ constitu tional cl ai m s.15 III . C ONCL US I ON

Free m an wa s not falsely

arr ested. I n perform ing hi s official duties, O ffice r Mur phy vio la te d no f

ed er al lawand, if

he did , w as e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty fro m su it . Andbe cau se Pla in ti ffs su ffer edno co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n, t he Town of E at onvi lle - - an d O ff

ic er Murp hy - - w er e en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a cc or din gly AFFIR MED.