FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 78 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 01 81 -CEH-SP C STEVEN W . WASHINGTON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ver su s JONATHAN TOBECK, ind iv idua ll y , and as anoff ic er o f th e Ft . My ers Po li ce Dep art m en t, JEREM Y HAW KINS, in di vi du al ly, an d a s an off ic er of th e Ft . My ers Po li ce Dep art m en t, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen dant s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 8, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo na th anTob eckan d J eremy Hawki ns (to ge th er, “ Defen da nt s” ), of fic ers in th e Fo rt M y ers Po li ce Dep art m en t, ap pe al 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 b as edonqu al ifi edimm un it y in Ste ve n Wash in gt on ’s act io n fo r da m ag es un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. W as hi ng to n h as all eg edth at 1 Defen da nt s v io la te d h is Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts when th ey en te redhi s h om e wit ho uta warra ntan d a rres te d h im
. Bec au se Defen da nt s wer e act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f th ei r di sc ret io na ry
au th or it y , W as hi ng to n b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t he y are n oten ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Se e S

ko p v . Cit y o f At la nt a, Ga
. , 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 -3 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Thu s, Wash in gt on “ m us t s at is fy

a two pro ng tes t; he m

us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e d efen da ntvi ol at eda co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , and(2) th is rig htwas c le arl y es tabl is he d a t t he ti m e o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on .” Hol lo man ex r el . Hol lo man v. Har la nd , 37 0 F .3d12 52 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Defen da nt s cl ai m

on ap pe al th atW as hi ng to n c an no t o ve rco m e qua li fie d imm un it y un de r ei th er p ro ng . Firs t, t he y cla im th atth ey di d n otvi ol at e W as hi ng to n’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts be cau se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d

We review“ de novo a district cour t’s dispositi on of a summar y judgme nt motion based 1 on qualified immunity , applying the same leg al standar ds as the district cour t.” Durruthy v. Pastor , 351 F.3d 1080, 1084 ( 11th Cir. 2003). All issues of material f act a re r esolved in favor of the plaintiff, and the n, under that version of the f acts, the le g al question of whe ther the de fenda nt is entitled to qualified immunit y is determined. Id.

2en te rin g Wash in gt on ’s ho m e to arre sthi m du e to hi s v io la ti on of ano is e
or di na nc e, ob stru ct io n o f jus ti ce, an d b at te ry of o ne of t he off

ic ers . Seco nd , and al te rn at iv el y , Defen da nt s ar gu e th at , eve n i f th ey vi ol at edhi s Fo urth Am en dm en t rig ht s i n e nt eri ng wit ho utex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , th ey are s ti ll en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y be cau se th e la w di d n otcle arl y est ab li sh th atth ei r act io ns vi ol at ed W as hi ng to n’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . A warran tl es s arres t i n t he ho m e witho utco ns en t i s p ro hi bi te d b y th e Fo urth Am en dm en t ab se ntpro babl e cau se an d e xi ge ntcir cu m st an ces . W el sh v. 2 W is co ns in , 46 6 U.S. 7 40 , 74 9, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 09 1, 2 09 7, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 7 32 (19 84 ). Exi ge ntcir cu m st an ces ex is t wh en “ th e in ev it ab le de la y in ci de ntto ob ta in in g a
warra ntm

us t g iv e way

to anurg en t n eedforimm ed ia te act io n.” McCl is h v
. Nuge nt , 48 3 F .3d12 31 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Fact or s in di cat in g e xi ge ntcir cu m st an ces in cl ud e: (1 ) th e g rav it y

or v io le ntna tu re o f th e o ffen se with wh ic h t he su sp ect is to be ch arg ed ; (2 ) a rea so nabl e b el ie f th atth e su sp ectis arm ed ; (3 ) pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e su sp ectco m m it te d the cri m e; (4) st ro ng reas on to be li ev e th atth e su sp ectis in th e p rem is es be in g en te red ; (5 ) a l ik el ih oo d t ha t d el ay co ul d c au se th e es cap e o f th e su sp ector t he de st ru ct io n o f es se nt ia l ev id en ce, o r jeop ard iz e th e sa fet y of o ffi cers or t he publ ic
.

There is no dispute that W ashing ton had violated the noise or dinance . Howeve r, bec ause 2 we f ind no exi g ent circ umstances, we do not addre ss the probable cause require ment. 3Uni te d Sta te s v. Sta nd ri dg e , 81 0 F .2d10 34 , 10 37 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). W e p res um e th ata warra nt le ss en try int o aho m e to m ak e an arre stis un reas on ab le , andth e go ve rn m en t h as a hi gh bu rd en to pro ve th atex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d. W el sh , 46 6 U.S. at75 0, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 98 . Furth erm or e, “ ap pl ic at io n o f th e ex ig en tci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on in th e co nt ex t o f a h om e en try sh ou ldrare ly be
sa nc ti on edwhen th ere i s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th aton ly a m in or off en se . . . ha s b eenco m

m it te d.” Id

. at 7 53 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 99
. A rig htis cle arl y

est ab li sh edif i t wo ul d b e cl ear t o areas on ab le off ic er t ha t hi s co nduc t was un la wfu l i n t he si tu at io n h e co nf ro nt ed
. Vin

ya rd v. W il so n , 31 1 F.3 d 1 34 0, 1 35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Fora pl ai nt iff to av oi d q ua li fie d i m

m un it y ba rri ng hi s s ui t, h e n eedno t s ho w th atth e o ffi cer’s co nduc t s pe ci fic al ly has be en he ldun la wfu l, b utrat he r th at“ in th e li gh t o f pr e-ex is ti ng law t he un la wfu ln es s [was ] ap pa ren t.” Ander

so n v . Cre ight on , 48 3 U.S. 6 35 , 64 0, 1 07 S. Ct. 3 03 4, 3 03 9, 97 L. Ed. 2d52 3 (1 98 7)
. Defen da nt s cl ai m

th atth ey reas on ab ly bel ie ve d Wash in gt on ha d a ss au lt ed Tob eckby slammin g t he do oron hi s fo otan d t ha t t he y ne ve r cro ss edth e th res ho ld
an d i ns te adpu ll edW as hi ng to n o utfro m th e d oo rway . Butvi ewin g the fact s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to W as hi ng to n, as we m us t, t he reco rdcan no t s us ta in Defen da nt s’ cla im s. When th ey in fo rm edW as hi ng to n o f th e n oi se vi ol at io n, h e

4co m

pl ie d wi th th ei r reque stto lo wer the vo lu m e o f th e m us ic an d the n a sk edth em to lea ve . Whe n t he y

di d n otres po nd , he a tt em pt edto clo se th e d oo r, bu t t he y st op pe d t he do orfro m

clo si ng , andth en ki ck edin th e d oo r, st ep pe d i n, an d
arre st edW as hi ng to n i n h is ho m e. The di stric t co 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 t hi s re co rd . Exi ge ntcir cu m st an ces di d n otex is t t o a rres t Wash in gt on . Onl y “ a m in oroff

en se . . . ha [d ] be en co m

m it te d,” an d n o d an ge r was ap pa ren t. W el sh , 46 6 U.S. at75 3, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 99 . There si m pl y was n o “ ur ge ntne edfor imm ed ia te act io n.” McCl is h , 48 3 F .3dat 1 24 1. Fu rth erm or e, th e la w was cl earl y es tabl is he d a t t he ti m e o f th e in ci de ntth at , with s uc h acle ar ab se nc e o f ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , Defen da nt s’ arres t o f W as hi ng to n i n h is ho m e v io la te d h is Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Defen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n q ua li fie d i m m un it y gro un ds
. AFFIRMED.

5