FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MAR 16, 2010

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 0 9- 12 63 7
Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 00 95 5- CV-T-3 3- TBM

SCOTT R. RUSHING,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

SEAN R. PARKER, Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of th e Est at e o f Ern es t R. M in cey, DAVID LAST,

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 ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(Ma rch 16 , 20 10 )

Befo re BI RCH, HULL and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:Defen da nt s Erne st R. Mi nc ey an d D av id Last

, of fic ers at th e Po lk Co un ty

Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, m is id en ti fie d an d arre st ed Pl ai nt iff Sco tt R. Ru sh in g. The vi ct im of

a cri m e, R i c h a r d W ic km an , r ep or te d to th e Sh eri ff’s of fic e th at a ro of

er he hi red to

rep ai r hu rri can e da m ag e to hi s ro of ha d vi ct im iz ed hi m

. Th e P la in ti ff was arre st ed

aft er an in ve st ig at io n. Howev er, th e st at e at to rn ey ’s of fic e la te r dr op pe d th e ch arg es

aft er i t d et erm in ed th at th e Pl ai nt iff was m is id en ti fie d a nd was n ot th e p erp et rat or

.

The Pl ai nt iff sued th e Defen da nt s, al le gi ng th at hi s fal se arre st vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l

rig ht s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Defen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r

su m m ar y ju d gm en t ba se d on th e do ct rin e of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The Pl ai nt iff

ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. I n s um , Ru sh in g co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t

er re d in gr an ti ng th e Defen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n be cau se th e Defen da nt s’

in ve st ig at io n of th e Pl ai nt iff was de fic ie nt

, an d th eref or e t h e D e f

e n da nt s are no t

en ti tl ed to rece iv e q ua li fie d i m m un it y

.

Sect io n 19 83 pr ov id es in di vi du al s wit h a fed eral rem ed y fo r th e de pr iv at io n of

rig ht s pr ot ect ed by the U.S. Con st it ut io n. Von St ei n v . Bres ch er , 90 4 F.2 d 57 2, 57 8

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ). Law en fo rcem en t vi o l a t es a pe rs on ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s

whe n it arre st s hi m or he r wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se , an d a cl ai m ari se s un de r § 19 83

.

Mad iw al e v. Sa va ik

o , 11 7 F.3 d 13 21

, 13 2 4 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 19 97 ). Pro ba bl e cau se is

pr es e nt “ whe n la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls ha ve fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces wit hi n th ei r

2kn owl ed ge su ffi ci en t to warra nt a reas on ab le be li ef th at th e su sp ect ha d c om m it te d

. . . a c r i me. ” Uni te d St at es v. Gon za le z , 96 9 F.2 d 99 9, 10 02 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 )

(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The “ ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se at th e ti m e of arre st co ns ti tu te s

an ab so lu te ba r to a se ct io n 19 83 act io n fo r fal se arre st .” Ca se v. Esl in ge r , 55 5 F.3 d

13 17 , 13 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Rel at ed to pr ob ab le cau se in t h i s co nt ex t is th e is su e of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

Se e Von St ei n , 90 4 F.2 d at 57 8. “ [Q]ual ifi ed im m un it y pr ot ect s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls

fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l da m ag e s in so far as th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y

es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reason ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve

kn own .” Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an ,

__ _ U.S.

__ _ , 12 9 S. Ct

. 80 8, 81 5 (2 00 9) (q uo ta ti on s

an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In or de r to rece iv e qu al ifi ed im m un it y , a go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l

m us t f i r s t d e mon st rat e th at he was en ga ge d in a “ di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ” whe n he

co m m it te d th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns

. Hol lo man ex re l. Hol lo man v. Har la nd

, 37 0 F.3 d

12 52

, 12 63 -6 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). Ass um in g th e go ve rn m en t of fic ia l de m on st rat es th at

he was act in g wit hi n hi s di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on , th e pl ai nt iff th en be ars th e bu rd en to

ov erco m e qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. C a s e , 5 5 5 F.3 d at 13 25

. In or de r to de feat th e

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l’s qu al ifi ed im m

un ity de fe nse, th e pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e th at (1 ) th e

of fic ia l “ vi ol at ed he r fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht s, an d (2 ) th at those rig ht s

3were cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e th e of fic er act ed .” Dou gl as Asp ha lt Co

. v. Qor e,

In c. , 54 1 F .3d 12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

“ In de te rm in in g whe th er qu al ifi ed i mm u n it y ex is ts

, th e is su e is no t pr ob ab le

cau se in fact bu t arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se .” Von St ei n , 9 0 4 F .2d at 57 9 (q uo ta ti on s

an d ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; se e al so Ca s e , 5 5 5 F

. 3 d at 13 27

. A de fen da nt ne ed on ly

de m on st rat e th at arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d in or de r to be pr ot ect ed by qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. Sa va ik

o , 11 7 F.3 d at 13 24 ; se e al so Ki ng sl an d v. Ci ty of

Mia mi

, 38 2 F.3 d

1 22 0, 12 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (n ot in g th at “ of fic ers who m ak e an arre st w i t h o u t

pr ob ab le cau se are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y if th ere was ar guab le pr ob ab le cau se

fo r th e arre st .”); se e al

so Gol d v. Ci ty of Mia mi

, 12 1 F.3 d 14 42

, 14 45 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 97 ). “ Arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se ex is ts whe re r e a s on ab le of fic ers in th e sa m e

ci rcu m st an ces an d po ss es si ng th e sa m e kn owl ed ge a s t h e Defen da nt co ul d ha ve

be li ev ed th at pro ba bl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t.” Ca se , 5 55 F.3d at 1 32 7 (q uo ta ti on s

an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

W it h th es e pr in ci pl es in m in d, th e qu es ti on be fo re th is co ur t is whe th er

reas on ab le la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls “ in th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d po ss es si ng th e

sa m e kn owl ed ge as [th e Defen da nt s] co ul d ha ve be li ev ed th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d

to arre st [th e] Pl ai nt iff

.” (R.1 -4 8 at 18

, qu ot in g Von St ei n, 90 4 F.2 d at 57 9.) W e

an swe r th is qu es ti on in th e aff irmativ e.

4“ The ess en ce o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s i s t he pu bl ic off ic ia l’s ob jecti ve

reas on ab le ne ss , reg ard le ss of h is un de rlyin g in te nt or m ot iv at io n.” Ki ng sl an d, 38 2

F.3 d at 12 31 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ The st an da rd is an ob jecti ve on e, an d th eref

or e do es

no t in cl ud e an in qu iry in th e of fic ers ’ su bjec ti ve in te nt or be li efs .” Von St ei n , 90 4

F.2 d at 57 9 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. In fact

, th e Defen da nt s’ “ su bjec ti ve be li efs ab ou t th e

m at te r, ho wev er in du ced

, are act ua ll y irr el ev an t to th e in qu iry.” Se vi gn y v. Dick se y ,

84 6 F.2 d 95 3, 95 7 n.5 (4 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th e

di st ric t co ur t se t fo rth th e co rrec t ob jecti ve s t a n d a rd

, it se em ed to ve nt ur e in to an 1

an al y si s in vo lv in g th e Defen da nt s’ st at es of m in d. Nev ert he le ss , th e di st ric t co ur t’s 2

lo ok in to th e su bjec ti ve in te nt s of th e D e f e n d a nt s do es no t al te r ou r vi ew th at th e

Defen da nt s ha d at le as t arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

. Se e Ca se , 55 5 F.3 d at

13 27

.

I.

In Pos t v. Ci ty of For t La ud er da le

, 7 F.3 d 15 52 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 9 3 )

, o f f i c e r s

arre st ed a res ta ur an t own er for all eg ed ly vi ol at in g th e m ax im um oc cu pa nc y co de in

hi s res t a u r a n t

. The of

fic ers co un te d pe op le in ex ces s of th e res ta ur an t’s m ax im um

The district court wrote: “[t] he Court is to apply an objective standard to deter mine whether 1

any office r could have found probable cause under the totality of the circ umstances.” (R.1-48 at 11.)

For example, the district court wrote, “[i] n this case , Plaintiff has prese nted no evidenc e that 2 Mincey ’s actions in failing to pursue cer tain leads was purposef

ul or that Mincey ’s intent was to conduct a biased investig ation.” (R.1-48 a t 16.)

5cap aci ty (twe nt y -two ). Howev er, th ere were le ss th an twen ty-t w o pe op le in th e

res ta ur an t; so , th ere was act ua ll y no vi ol at io n. The own er su ed fo r fal se arre st

, am on g

ot he r cl ai ms

. The of

fic ia ls pu t fo rth a qu al ifi ed im m un it y de fen se

. Thi s co ur t, in

affi rm in g qu al ifi ed im

m un it y to th e of

fic ers , wro te

, “ [h ]ere, th e is su e is no t whe th er

th e [o ffi cers ’] he ad co un ts were, in fact , c or rect ;

. . . [ in st ead

, t ]h e is su e m at eri al to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y is whe th er a reas on ab le of fic er in [th e of

fic ers ’] pl ace– th at is

, in

th es e ci rcu m st an ces –c ou ld ha ve be li ev ed th at m or e th an 22 cu st om ers were pr es en t.”

Id

. at 1 55 8.

In Rod ri gu ez v. Far re ll

, 28 0 F.3 d 13 41 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 2 )

, J oe Ro dr ig ue z, th e

p l ai nt iff

, al le ge d th at of

fic ers vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by arre st in g h i m

pu rs ua nt to a warra nt fo r th e act ua l pe rp et rat or who al so us ed th e na m e “ Jo e

Ro dr ig ue z.” Id

. at 13 43

. The pl ai nt iff an d th e ot he r in di v i d u a l h a d man y si m il ar

ph y si cal feat ur es

. Nev ert he le ss , th ey ha d se ve ral di st in gu is hi ng feat ur es , in cl ud in g,

m os t pr om in en tl y , a di ffer en ce in hei gh t: th e pl ai nt iff was 5'1 1"

, whe reas th e act ua l

pe rp et rat or was 5'6 ". W e he ld

, “ in th e co nt ex t of th is cas e, a m is ta ke n es ti m at e of no

m or e th an fiv e in ch es do es no t eq ua l a c on st it ut io na l v io la ti on .” Id

. at 1 34 8.

We a g r ee wit h th e Pl ai nt iff th at Rod ri gu ez is no t di rect ly co nt ro ll in g to o u r

fact s be cau se th at cas e “ co nc ern ed th e of fic er’s o n

- t he -s cen e de ci si on to arre st

so meo n e he m is ta ke nl y th ou gh t was th e su bjec t of an act iv e, va li d warra nt

, whi le

6Mi nc ey an d Last ha d m an y m on th s t o d et erm in e th e tru e id en ti ty of th e pe rp et rat or

of th e cri m e, an d ob

jecti v e e x cu lp at or y ev id en ce.” (Ap pe ll an t’s Rep ly Br. at 1.)

Howev er, it is ne ve rth el es s accu rat e th at “ th e pr in c i pl es se t fo rth in Rod ri gu ez st il l

ap pl y to th e cas e at ba r in th at th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e of fic ers ’ de ci si on s wit h

res pe ct to pr ob ab le cau se m us t be vi ewed in li gh t of th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

su rro un di ng th e arr es t.” (Ap pe ll ee’s Br. at 29 -3 0.)

Des pi te th e fact th at th e of fic ers in Rod

ri gu ez “ were in th e fie ld [an d] no t in a

po li ce st at io n,” Rod

ri gu ez , 28 0 F.3 d at 13 48

, of fic ers were gi ve n co ns tru ct iv e no ti ce

th at th ey m ay be arre st in g th e wro ng pe rs on be cau se of th e he ig ht di ffer en ce be twee n

th e pl ai nt iff an d th e act ua l pe rp et rat or

. Si m il arl y , in Ca nn on v. Mac on Co un ty

, 1 F.3 d

15 58 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ), mod if ie d

, 15 F.3 d 10 22 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ), th e co ur t fo un d th at

th e of fic er act ed wit h in di ffer en ce an d was no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The re,

th e of fic er was on no ti ce th at th e pl ai nt iff m ay no t be th e pe rp et rat or be cau se th e

pl ai nt iff rep eat ed ly m ai nt ai ne d it was a cas e of m is ta ke n id en ti ty an d th e de sc rip ti on

fro m th e fu gi ti ve rep or t d id “ no t ac cu rat el y de sc rib e th e p la in ti ff.” Id

. at 1 56 0.

II.

In co nt ras t to Rod

ri gu ez an d Ca nn on , whe re of fic ers ha d so m e in di cat io n th at

th ey m ay be arre st in g th e wro ng pe rs on , he r e “ th ere is no pr oo f th at Mi nc ey ha d

do ub ts as to Ru sh in g’s id en ti ty whe n he co m pl et ed th e affi da vi t to ob ta in a warra nt .”

7(R.1 -4 8 at 14 .) Ju st as we he ld in Pos t th at “ a ‘m is ta ke n b ut reas on ab le co un t’ wa s

su ffi ci en t fo r [ ] ag en ts to es ta bl is h arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se ,” Ki ng sl a nd

, 38 2 F.3 d

at 12 33 (q uo ti ng Pos t

, 7 F.3 d at 1 5 5 8 )

, we be li ev e th at Mi nc ey ’s arre st affi da vi t,

al th ou gh m is ta ke n, was su ch th at “ reas on ab le of fic ers in th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d

po ss es si ng th e sa m e kn owl ed ge as th e Defen da nt [s ’ kn owl ed ge ] co ul d ha ve be li ev ed

t h a t pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d to arre st .” Ca se , 55 5 F.3 d at 13 27 (q uo ta ti o n s a n d

ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Mi nc ey ’s co nd uc t h e re is th e type th at qu al ifi ed im m un it y is

m ean t to pr ot ect : “ a reas on ab le m is ta ke in th e le gi ti m at e pe rfo rm an ce of [an of fic er’s]

du ti es .” Ki ng

sl an d , 38 2 F .3d at 1 23 3.

An an al og y to th e cas e at ha nd can als o b e d rawn fro m Pos t . There , we h el d

th at th e de fen da nt s ha d arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se to arre st th e res ta ur an t own er, de sp it e

th e fact th at th e ex on erat in g ev id en ce was rig ht be fo re th ei r ey es –o ffi cers si m pl y ha d

to co rrec tl y co un t th e nu m be r of pa tro ns at th e res ta ur an t. The y co ul d ha ve co un te d

m or e care fu ll y , an d co nf

erre d wit h m an ag em en t in or de r to fin d ou t whi ch in di vi du al s

were em pl oyees (an d th eref

or e sh ou ld no t ha ve be en co un te d)

. Nev ert he le ss , we

fo un d th at th ei r m is ta ke was reas on ab le ev en th ou gh th e ex on e r at in g ev id en ce was

i n f r on t of th em

. Drawi ng fro m si m il ar reas on in g, whi le Mi nc ey co ul d h a v e

co nd uc te d a m or e th or ou gh in ve st ig at io n by us in g th e pe rp et rat or ’s ad dr es s an d

p h o n e n u mb e r fro m th e ro of in g co nt ract in or de r to co nf irm hi s id en ti ty, it was

8reas on ab le fo r hi m to as su m e th at th e Pl ai nt iff was th e pe rp et rat or

. Afte r th e vi ct im

fil e d h i s c o m

pl ai nt

, Mi nc ey to ok “ ap pr op ria te st ep s to in ve st ig at e th e cl ai m by

in te rv ie win g [th e vi ct im ] an d [req ue st in g] a fin ge rp rin t rep or t reg ard in g th e pr in ts on

th e ba ck of th e ch eck pr od uc ed by [th e vi ct im ]. ” (R

. 1

- 4 8 at 14 -1 5.) The vi ct im

ad m it te d th at he fil ed hi s co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Sco tt Ru sh in g in st ead of J. Sco tt Ru sh in g,

an d th a t h e b e l i e ve d th e na m e of th e pe rp et rat or was Sco tt Ru sh in g. In ad di ti on ,

Mi nc ey (1 ) ob ta in ed ev id en ce th at Sco tt Ru sh in g d/ b/ a Ro of in g by Ru sh in g was no t

a li cen ced co nt ract or in Fl or id a; (2 ) ob ta in ed arre st reco rd s fo r Sco tt Ru sh in g; an d (3 )

ha d th e vi ct im id en ti fy Ru sh in g fro m a ph ot o li ne -u p. Mi nc ey ha d no r eas on to

be li ev e th at th e Pl ai nt iff was no t in de ed th e pe rp et rat or , es pe ci al ly in li gh t of th e fact

th at th e vi ct im fil ed th e co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t “ Sco tt Ru sh in g” an d id en ti fie d th e Pl ai nt iff

as th e pe rp et rat or in th e ph ot o li ne -u p. Thro ug ho ut th e in ve st ig at io n, th e vi ct im ne ve r

ex pr es se d d ou bt th at th e Pl ai nt iff was t he pe rp et rat or

.

The fin ge rp rin t an al y si s ap pe ars to ha ve pr ov id ed pr oo f th at th e Pl ai nt iff was

no t th e pe rp et rat or

. The an al y si s was co m pl et e on Ju ne 2, 20 05 –a fte r Mi nc ey

co m pl et ed th e arre st affi da vi t. Alt ho ug h th e in di vi du al who pe rfo rm ed th e an al y si s

sa id th e in fo rm at io n was se nt to Mi nc ey “ aro un d Ju ne 2n d,” th e Pl ai nt i f f h as

pr od uc ed no ev id en ce whi ch es ta bl is he s th e da te on whi c h Mi nc ey rece iv ed it

. In

fact

, th ere is no ev id en ce reg ard in g whe th er Mi nc ey act ua ll y rece iv ed th e an al y si s at

9al l; he wen t on m ed ic al le av e on Ju ne 21

, 20 05 an d “ th e Cert ifi cat io n of Heal th Care

Pro vi de r su bm it te d by Mi nc ey refl ect ed th at he was su ffer in g fro m ‘sev ere unde rly in g

lu ng di se as e req ui rin g ox y ge n’ (emp h ys em a) th at co m m en ced on Ju ne 3, 20 05 .”

(R.1 -4 8 a t 1 7- 18 .)

Alt ho ug h by no m ean s pe rfec t, Mi nc ey ’s in ve st ig at io n was no t “p la in ly

in co m pe te nt .” Ki ng

sl an d , 38 2 F.3 d at 12 31 (q uo ta ti on s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . Nor

di d th e Pl ai nt iff pr od uc e ev id en ce th a t Mi nc ey “ kn owi ng ly vi ol at ed th e la w.” Id

.

(q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it t e d )

. Th e r e is no ev id en ce th at Mi nc ey ha d reas on to

be li ev e th e pe rp et rat or wa s a nyon e ot he r th an th e Pl ai nt iff

, gi ve n th e vi ct im ’s

co m pl ai nt an d id en ti fic at io n. Mo st im po rta nt ly, we be li ev e th at a reas on ab le of fic er

in Mi nc ey ’s si tu at io n co ul d ha ve fo ll owe d a si m il ar co ur se of act io n an d be li ev ed th at

pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d. In or de r to “ de feat su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se of a di sp ut e

of m at e r i a l f

a ct

, a pl ai nt iff faci ng qu al ifi ed im m un it y m us t pr od uc e ev id en ce th at

wou ld al lo w a fact -fi nd er to fin d th at no reas on ab le pe rs on in th e de fen da nt ’s po si ti on

co ul d ha ve th ou gh t th e fact s were su ch th at th ey jus ti fie d th e de fen da nt ’s act s.” Pos t

,

7 F.3 d at 15 57

. The Pl ai nt iff ha s no t m et hi s bu rd en

. Acco rd in gl y , we fi n d t h a t

Mi nc ey ha d, at m in im

um , arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se to is su e th e arre st affi da vi t of th e

Pl ai nt iff

.

III.

10W e al so be li ev e th at Last act ed reas on ab ly gi ve n hi s li m it ed in vo lv em en t in th e

in ve st ig at io n. In Ja nu ary 20 06

, th e st at e at to rn ey ’s o f fic e co nt act ed Last an d “ to ld

hi m th at th e in ve st ig at io n ha d be en co m pl et ed

, th at th ere was al read y a ch arg e ba se d

on th e affi da vi t, an d th at al l th ey ne ed ed was a ph ot o- pa c k i d en ti fic at io n fro m th e

v i c t i m.” ( R

. 1- 48 at 20 .) It is tru e th at th e fin ge rp rin t an al y si s, whi ch m ay ha v e

ex on erat ed th e pl ai nt iff

, was in th e ni ne te en -p ag e fil e whe n Last co nd uc te d th e ph ot opa ck id en ti fic at io n. Ho wev er, Las t’s fa il ur e to co nd uc t a r ev ie w of a ll ev id en ce in

th e cas e was no t un reas on ab le

. Oth er reas on ab le of fic ers co ul d ha ve fo ll owe d th e

sa m e co ur se of act io n as Last

. Se e Ca se , 55 5 F.3 d at 13 27

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t th at th e Pl ai nt iff ha s no t sh own a reas on fo r Last to ha v e q u e s t i o n ed th e

th or ou gh ne ss of th e pr ev io us in ve st ig at io n. (R.1 -4 8 at 21 .) Nor ha s th e Pl ai nt iff

sh own an y reas on fo r Last “ to be li ev e th at [th e vi ct im ’s] id en ti fic at io n o f P l a i nt iff

was un rel ia bl e.” Id

. If we were to de te rm in e th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Last

, an un wan te d an d in effi ci en t pr eced en t wou ld be crea te d,

req ui rin g of

fic ers , no m at te r ho w m in im al th ei r in vo lv em en t in th e cas e, to se co nd

gu es s th e pr ev io us wor k of of fic ers , an d to co nd u c t ov erl ap pi ng an d in effi ci en t

in ve st ig at io ns

. Acco rd in gl y , th is co ur t ag rees wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at

, gi ve n Last ’s

li m it ed in vo lv em en t in th e cas e, he act ed as a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld in se cu rin g

th e id en ti fic at io n of th e P l a i nt iff by th e vi ct im

, de sp it e hi s fai lu re to rev ie w th e

11Pl ai nt iff ’s f

il e th at was as se m

bl ed b y M i nc ey

. The tri al co ur t co rrec tl y gr an te d th e

Defen da nt s’ su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n.

AFFIR MED.

12