FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Dec ember

4, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 12 69 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 20 94 9- CV-J EM PATRICK K. BALL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITY OF CORAL GABLES, CORAL GABLES POLICE DEPARTMENT, DON SLE SNICK, i n h is off ic ia l cap aci ty as Mayor o f th e Ci ty of Co ral Gabl es , MIC HAEL HA MM ERSCHM IDT, inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Po li ce Ch ie f of th e Co ral Gabl es Po li ce Dep art m en t, ALESTER GARCIA, in di vi du al ly, an d i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty as a p ol ic e of fic er fo r th e Ci ty of Co ral Gabl es , DANIEL SMITH, in di vi du al ly, an d i n h is off ic ia l cap aci ty as a p ol ic e o ffi cer f orth e Ci ty of Co ral Gabl es , 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 So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 4, 2 00 8) Befo re BI RCH, HULL, andHILL, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Patric k K. Bal l s ue d the va rio us de fen da nt s fo r da m ag es un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , all eg in g v io la ti on s o f hi s ci vi l ri gh ts un de r th e Fo urth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts . Spe ci fic al ly, he ass ert s tha t d efen da nt s fa ls el y arre st ed , fal se ly im pr is on edan d m al ic io us ly pro se cu te d h im . The d is tri ctco urt en te redsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s an d B al l b ro ug htth is ap pe al . For t he fol lo win g reas on s, we s ha ll affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt.

I. Bal l was arre st edon su sp ic io n o f drun k driv in g i n S ou th Mi am i b y po li ce of fic ers fro m

th e Ci ty of Co ral Gabl es . The b as is forBal l’s cl ai m s o f
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n i s tha t the off ic ers di d n othave th e le ga l au th or ity to m ak e th is ou t-o f-jur is di ct io n a rres t. The di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t the off ic ers di d h av e th e au th or ity to m ak e th e arr es t an d e nt eredsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s. W e rev ie w th is jud gm en t de no vo . Burnes v. Pemc o Aer op le x, In c. , 29 1 F .3d12 82 (1 1 Cir . 20 02 ). th II. The arre stat i ss ue inth is cas e was effe ctua te d p ur su an t t o am utua l ai d ag reem en t b etweenth e ci ti es of S ou th Mi am i an d C or al Gabl es . Suc h a gr eem en ts
are aut ho riz edby the Flo rid a Mu tu al AidAct. Fl a. St at . §§ 23 .12 , et. s eq . Se e 2al

so Rin aldo v. Stat e , 78 7 S o. 2 d 2 08 , 21 4 (F la . 4 DCA 20 01 ). Pur su an t t o s uc h th
anag reem en t, an off

ic er m ay arre stou ts id e o f hi s juris di ct io n u nd er the term s o f th e ag reem en t. Rin aldo , 78 7 S o. 2 d a t 2 14
. Defen da nt s s ub m it te d aco py of th e m utua l ai d a gr eem en t i n fo rce b etween th e Co ral Gabl es Po li ce Dep art m en t an d t he Cit y of S ou th Mi am i Po li ce Dep artm en t atth e ti m e o f Bal l’s arres t. Thi s ag reem en t p ro vi de d fo r joi nt
en fo rcem en t o f th e tr affi c la ws o n c ert ai n s pe ci fie d ro adway s, i nc lu di ng th e o ne on whi chBal l was arre st ed
. Bal l ar gu es th atth is ag reem en t i s i nv al idas am at te r of law b ecau se itis to o br oa d a nd/o r itis a fab ric at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex am in edth e ag reem en t an d fo un d i t t o c on fo rm

to th e p ur

po se s u nd erl y in g t he Flo rid a st atut e an d we f in d n o erro r inth is co nc lu si on . Sim il arl y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Ba ll fai le d
co m pl et el y to est ab li sh th atth e ag reem en t was a “ fab ric at io n.” Fi na ll y , th e d efen da nt s ar e n ot , as B al l as se rts , col la te ral ly esto pp edno r pr ev en te d b y

res jud ic at a fro m

rel y in g upo n t he m

utua l ai d a gr eem en t t o s up po rt th e la wfu ln es s o f Bal l’s arres t. An y co ntrary con cl us io ns reg ard in g t he m utua l ai d ag reem en t i n the un de rlyin g s ta te cri m in al cas e ag ai ns t Ba ll do no t b in d t he de fen da nt s i n thi s ca se as t he y were n otpa rti es to th atcri min al cas e. Se e Gen ti le v. Bau de r , 71 8 S o. 2 d 7 81 , 78 3 (F la . 19 98 ).
3As t o B al l’s s ta te cla im s, the pre se nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se is fat al to cla im s o f

fal se arre stan d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . Our rev ie w of the reco rd , in cl ud in g the of fic ers ’ rep orts , con firm s the pre se nc e o f reas on ab le su sp ic io n fo r th e in ve st ig at ory

st op , as wel l as pro babl e cau se forBal l’s arres t. The ev id en ce i s th atBal l was ob se rv eddri vi ng a ve hi cl e th atrep eat ed ly swerv edinan d o utof i ts lane of t rav el an d tha t, af te r be in g s to pp ed , Bal l ad m it te d t ha t h e h adbe en dr in ki ng an d fa il edall th e so br ie ty test s h e was gi ve n. Th is is su ffi ci en t t o l eada prud en t o ffi cer t o b el ie ve th atBal l h adbe endri vi ng un de r th e in flu en ce, the of fen se forwhi chhe was arres te d. Se e Sta te Dep’ t o f Hi gh wa y S af et y a nd Mot or Veh ic les v. De S

ho ng , 60 3 S o. 2 d 1 34 9, 1 35 2 (F la . 2dDCA 19 92 ); Rob er ts v. St at e , 73 2 S o. 2 d 1 12 7, 1 12 8 (F la . 4 DCA 19 99 ). th III. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s due to be AFFIRMED.

4