FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13373

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 1 5 1 9 - CV - O RL- 3 1 - K RS D O N O V A N G E O R G E D A V I S , D I A N A E L E I S E D A V I S , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s S H E R I F F P H I L L I P B . W I L L I A M S , D E P U T Y E D W A R D B E C H T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , J O N D O E 1 , a d e p u ty w h o is n o t k n o w a t th is tim e , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2006)The a rre st report indicates that Davis wa s arrested for obstruction of justice and 1 disorderly conduct in violation of F la. Stat. §§ 843.02 and 877.03. Be causethe district court found suf ficient proba

ble ca use, it conclude d that therewas 2 also a suff

icient showingof arguable probable c ause, entitli ngBe cht to qualified immunity . See Davis v. Will iams, No. 603-CV-1519- ORL -31KRS, 2005 WL1126658, at *9 (M. D. F la. May 05, 2005). 2 B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: D on ov an D avi s ( “ D avi s” ) a nd hi s w i fe D i ana D avi s app ea l a s um m ary ju d g m e n t o r d e rin f

a v o ro f D e p u ty E d w a r d B e c h t a n d S h e r if f P h illip W illia m s . D onova n D a vi s s ue d B e c hta l l e gi ng tha tB e c htf a l s e l y a rr e s t e d hi m f

orobs truc t i on of j us t i c e a nd di s or de r l y c onduc ta nd us e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e t o do s o i n vi ol a t i on of th e F o u rth A m en d m en tan d v ari o u s F l o ri d a st at e l aw s. D av i s al so su ed W i l l i am s, 1 al l egi ng thatW i l l i am s w as l i abl e f or B ec ht ’ s a ct i on s und erthe F l ori da st at e l aw theory of r es po nd ea tsuperi or and u nd er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 for i nst i tut i ng po l i ci es th a t c o n tr ib u te d to o rc a u s e d D a v is ’ in ju r ie s . D ia n a D a v is ’ s o le c a u s e o f a c tio n in the a m e nde d c om pl a i nt( a s s e r t e d s ol e l y a ga i ns tB e c ht ) w a s a F l or i da s t a t e c l a i m f or a l o s s o f c o n s o r t i u m. T h e d i stri ctco u rtru l ed th atB ech tw as en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty, co n cl u d i n g , i n t er al i a, th atB ech td i d n o tfal sel y arrestD av i s b ecau se th ere w as a s uf f i c i e nts how i ng of

pr oba bl e c a us e t o m a ke the a rr e s t . A s t o D a vi s ’ e xc e s s i ve 2 f or c e c l a i m , the c our trul e d tha tthe f or c e B e c htus e d t o e f

f e c tua t e the a rr e s tw a s deTh eremainingc laims werealsodis mis se d b e c a us ethey weredepend e nt u

po n th efalse 3 arre st a nd e xce ssivefo rc ec laims . 3 mi n i mu s . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta l s o g r a n t e d s u mma ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f W i l l i a ms because there w as no un derl yi ng w rong ful ac tor const i tut i on al vi ol at i on for w hi ch he c oul d be he l d l i a bl e . F orthe r e a s ons s e tf or th be l ow , w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd 3 fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I. STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW U nde rthe doc tr i ne of

qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , “ gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s pe r f

or m i ng di sc re t i on ary f

un ct i on s gener al l y a re shi el ded from l i abi l i ty f or ci vi l dam ages i ns of a ra s the i rc onduc tdoe s notvi ol a t e c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d s t a tut or y or c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s of

w hi c h a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve know n. ” H a r l ow v. F itz g e r a ld , 4 5 7 U .S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . B e c a u s e th e r e is n o d is p u te th a t D e p u ty B e c h t w a s p e r f

o r m in g h is d is c r e tio n a ry f u n c tio n s a s a d e p u ty , th e b u r d e n s h if ts to D a vi s t o s how tha tqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s notappr opr i a t e . L e e v. F e rr a r o, 284 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 94 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). Q ua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s a tw o- pa r ti nqui ry s e tf or th i n S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . F ir s t w e a s k , “[ t]a k e n in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e p a r ty a s s e r t i ng the i nj ury , do the f a c t s a l l e ge d s how the of f i c e r ’ s c onduc tvi ol a t e d a const i tut i on al ri gh t ? ” I d. If , as sum i ng the pl ai nt i ff’ s a l l egat i on s w er e true, no such ri gh tw ou l d h ave been vi ol at ed, the anal ys i s i s c om pl et e. H ow ever , i f a4

co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n can b e m ad e o u to n th e p l ai n t i ff’ s fact s, w e th en m u st det erm i ne “ w hether, atthe t i m e of the i nci dent , every obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e pol i ce offi ce r w ou l d h ave r ea l i ze d the ac t s vi ol at ed al re ady c l ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l a w . ” G a rr e ttv. A the ns - C l a r ke C ounty , 378 F . 3d 1274, 1278- 79 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c itin g S a u c ie r , 5 3 3 U .S . a t 2 0 1 - 0 2 ) . “T h is is n o t to s a y th a t a n o f f ic ia l a c tio n is p r o te c te d b y q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity u n le s s th e v e ry a c tio n in q u e s tio n h a s p r e v io u s ly be e n he l d unl a w f

ul . . . buti ti s t o s a y tha ti n the l i ghtof pr e - e xi s t i ng l a w the unl a w f ul ne s s m us tbe appa r e nt . ” H ope v. P e l z e r , 536 U . S . 730, 739 ( 2002) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). “ [O ] ff i ci al s c an st i l l be on no t i ce thatthei r c on du ctvi ol at es es t abl i shed l aw even i n n ov el fa ctual ci rc um st ance s. . . . A l tho ug h ear l i erca se s i nv ol vi ng ‘ fund am ent al l y s i m i l ar ’ fa ct s c an prov i de es peci al l y s trong supp ortfor a c onc l us i on tha tthe l a w i s c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d, the y a r e notne c e s s a ry t o s uc h a fi nd i ng . ” I d. at74 1. In the cont extof a c l ai m for f al se arre st , an offi ce r i s e nt i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty w h ere th ato ffi cer h ad “ arg u ab l e p ro b ab l e cau se, ” th ati s, w h e r e “ r e a s o n a b l e o f

f i c e r s i n th e s a me c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n d p o s s e s s i n g th e s a me k n o w le d g e a s th e D e f

e n d a n ts c o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d th a t p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is te d to arre st ” the pl ai nt i ff

. K i ng sl and v . C i ty of M i am i , 38 2 F . 3d 12 20 , 12 32 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot i ng V on S t ei n v . B re sc her, 90 4 F . 2d 57 2, 57 9 (11 th C i r. 19 90 )) . T o d e te r m in e w h e th e ra r g u a b le p r o b a b le c a u s e e x is ts , c o u r ts m u s t lo o k to5

the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s . A tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge , c our t s vi e w the to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty . S ee S k rt i ch v . T h o rn t o n , 2 8 0 F . 3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ); E v an s v . S t ep h en s, 407 F . 3d 1272, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T ha ti s , c our t s m us tc ons true the f a c t s a nd draw al l i nfer ence s i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no nm ov i ng party a nd “ w hen c onf l i c t s a r i s e be tw e e n the f a c t s e vi de nc e d by the pa r t i e s , w e c r e di tthe nonm ovi ng party’ s ver si on . ” E vans, 40 7 F . 3d at12 78 . E ven t ho ug h the “ ‘ fa ct s, ’ as ac ce pt ed a tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge of the pr oc e e di ngs , m a y notbe the ‘ a c tua l ’ f a c t s of the ca se , ” P ri es t erv. C i ty of R i vi er a B ea ch, 20 8 F . 3d 91 9, 92 5 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 2000) , oura na l y s i s f

orpurpos e s of

s um m a ry j udgm e ntm us tbe gi n w i th a de s c r i pt i on of

the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f , S kr t i c h, 280 F . 3d a t1299. I I . B AC KG RO UN D T h e f a c ts , v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to D a v is , r e f

le c t th e f o llo w in g . O n the eveni ng of D avi s’ arre st , the D avi se s w er e host i ng a “ fa m i l y get -t og ether. ” A ton e poi nt , D avi s not i ce d fl as hi ng po l i ce l i gh t s out si de hi s hou se . C on ce rned th a t s o m e f

a m ily m e m b e r s w h o h a d n o t y e t a rr iv e d m a y h a v e b e e n in a n a c c id e n t, he w entou t si de t o i nv es t i gat e. H e w al ked d ow n h i s dri vew ay , D avi s L ane, w hi ch is ap p r o x im a te ly 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t lo n g , to w a r d s th e p o lic e lig h ts . U n b e k n o w n s t toThe re cord indicates a c onflict conc erningDavis’ demeanor as he a pproached B echt. 4 For purposes of summar

y judgment, we ac cept Da

vis’ version that he did not talk in a loud voice or ye ll at th edeputie s. 6 D a v is , D e p u ty B e c h t a n d D e p u ty B a rr e tt B r ig h t w e r e c o n d u c tin g a tr a f f ic s to p . T he de put i e s ha d i ni t i a t e d the s t op a tthe s tr e e tc onne c t i ng t o D a vi s L a ne , a nd fo l l o w ed th e v eh i cl e o n t o D av i s L an e, w h ere i tcam e t o a st o p 2 5 0 feetfro m D av i s’ fr on tdo or. A s D a vi s appr oa c he d the de put i e s , w i th hi s ha nds i n the a i r , the f ol l ow i ng 4 e xc ha nge d oc c urr e d:

D a v i s : O f

f i c e rI ’ m th e h o me o w n e r . W h a t ’ s th e p r o b l e m. B ec ht : G etaw ay fr om here . D avi s: O ff

i ce r, I l i ve here. B e c h t : L e a v e n o w. D a vi s a s ke d “ w ha t ’ s w r ong, ” butnone the l e s s , “ turn[ e d] a w a y a nd . . . w a l k[ e d] up t o the concret e” cl osert o h i s hou se . H e not i ce d, ho w ever , thatthe po l i ce ca r w as bl ocki ng D avi s L ane, forc i ng ca rs t o d ri ve on t o ano ther partof hi s property, w hi ch e n d e d in a n u n lit la k e . B e lie v in g th is to b e d a n g e r o u s , D a v is a s k e d B e c h t if D a v is co u ld d irec t tra ff

ic to av o id p o ss ib le ac cid en ts in v o lv in g th e lak e. B ec h t’ s r e s pons e w a s : “ L e a ve now orI ’ l l a rr e s ty ou. ” W he n D a vi s a s ke d B e c htw hy he w oul d be a rr e s t e d, B e c hta ga i n or de r e d hi m t o l e a ve . D a vi s turne d t ow a r d the h o u s e , b u t a s k e d if

h e c o u ld s p e a k w ith B e c h t’s s u p e r io ra n d o n e o f D a v is ’ g u e s tsDa vishad e xite d th eho us ewi th o neof hisgue sts . D avisstate s th at nooth e r gue st 5 exit ed the houseuntil after hewas a rre sted. Although B echt c laims a crow d was walking towa rds the vehic les and that Da vis was 6 yelling f or them to come he lp him, Davis denies this and claims he only called f or his wife a

nd asked her not to leaveafter he w as ar rested. 7 a s k e d f o rB e c h t’s b a d g e n u m b e r . B e c h t’s r e s p o n s e a g a in w a s to te ll D a v is th a t if 5 he cont i nu ed t o say anythi ng , he w ou l d b e a rr es t ed. A cc ordi ng l y, D avi s s t art ed t ow a r d the hous e . A ttha tpoi nt , w i th D a vi s ’ ba c k t o B e c hta nd D a vi s he a di ng t o w a r d th e h o u s e , Be c h ta n d Br i g h tg r a b b e d D a v i s f r o m b e h i n d , tw i s t e d h i s a r ms behi nd hi s bac k and hand cuff ed hi m . D avi s tri ed t o t el l B ec htthathe had an i nj ured shou l der a nd w as i n p ai n. B ec ht ’ s r es po nse w as t o p ush h i s a rm “ hard w ay up, ” c a us i ng gr e a t e rpa i n. D a vi s w a s the n ha ndc uf f e d, a nd f or c e d t o the gr ound by B ec htpu shi ng on hi s bad shou l der. B ec htdragged D avi s t o the po l i ce ca r, w hi ch w as a c ani ne un i t , and forced hi m dow n on the gr ound a ga i n, w hi l e pul l i ng ha r d on hi s s houl de r . I n the m e a nt i m e , B r i ghtpul l e d the pol i c e dog outof i t s c a ge i n the ba c k of

the uni ta nd B e c h t d r a g g e d , p u s h e d o rth r e w D a v is v e ry h a r d in to th e d o g c a g e c a u s in g h im to h i th i s h ead o n th e t o p o f th e car as h e en t ered . S t i l l h an d cu ffed , D av i s sl i d acro ss 6 the bott om of

the c a ge , hi thi s he a d a nd s houl de ron the oppos i t e s i de of the c a ge a nd ha d t o l a y dow n on the m e t a l f l oorof the c a ge . D a vi s w a s the n dr i ve n i n the ca ge, no tt o the po l i ce st at i on , bu tt o a nearby parki ng l ott o w ai tfor a no therWe beg in our analysis with arguable probable c ause a nd qualified immunity

beca use if, 7 as wehold, there is an insuff icient showingof arguable probable c ause, then thereis clearly an insufficient showingof proba ble ca use. Our inquiry

focuse s on the first step of the qualified immunity analysis – whether 8 Da vis ’ c on sti tution al rightswerevio late d. Th e reis n o q ue sti on tha t th ese c on d s tep –

c le arly e sta bli sh e d – is s atis fi e d, a s it

is c le arly e sta bli sh e d th at an a

rre st m a dewi thout p roba blec a us e violates the F ourth Amendment. Thor nton v. City

of Mac on, 132 F.3d 1395, 1399 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (c iting Von Stein v. B resc her, 904 F .2d 572, 579 (11th Cir. 1990)). 8 ve hi c l e t o tr a ns por thi m t o the pol i c e s t a t i on. A f t e rthe i nc i de nt , D a vi s ’ ne c k a nd thum b w e r e s w ol l e n, a nd he c oul d notm ove hi s a r m s . H e w a s di a gnos e d w i th a to rn r o ta to rc u f

f in h is r ig h t s h o u ld e r , f

o rw h ic h h e u n d e rw e n t a s u r g ic a l r e p a ir . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T h e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth ere w as su ffi ci en tp ro b ab l e cau se an d , th u s, a r gua bl e pr oba bl e c a us e . O n appe a l , D a vi s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s opi ni on 7 m ustbe re vers ed because the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y r es ol ved factual di sput es a ga i ns tD a vi s a nd i gnor e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s c ruc i a l t o hi s c a s e . D a vi s a r gue s tha tthe f a c t s s e tf or th a bove , vi e w e d unde rthe c orr e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d, r e f l e c ta vi ol a t i on of a c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t s u c h th a t B e c h t d id n o t h a v e e v e n a r g u a b le p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a rr e s th i m. 8 A. W he the rthe r e w a s a r gua bl e pr oba bl e c a us e t o a rr e s tD a vi s de pe nds upon w ha ta m ount s t o pr oba bl e c a us e unde rF l or i da l a w f orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e a nd di s or de r l y c onduc t . O bs truc t i on of j us t i c e i s c odi f

i e d i n F l or i da S t a tut e § 843. 02,“Words alone may result in obstruction of justice where theofficer in question is 1) 9 servingproce ss; 2) leg ally detaininga per son; or 3) askingfor a ssistance.”Francis v. State, 736 So. 2d 97, 99 n.2 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1999). 9 w h i ch p ro v i d es: W hoe ve rs ha l l r e s i s t , obs truc t , oroppos e a ny of f i c e r. . . i n the e xe c ut i on of l e ga l pr oc e s s ori n the l a w f ul e xe c ut i on of

a ny l e ga l duty , w i thoutof f e r i ng or doi ng vi ol e nc e t o the pe r s on of the of f i c e r , s ha l l be gui l ty of

a m i s de m e a nor o f th e f ir s t d e g r e e . . . . F l a. S t at . § 8 4 3 . 0 2 . T o su p p o rta co n v i ct i o n p u rsu an tt o § 8 4 3 . 0 2 , th e st at e m u st pr ove : “ ( 1) the of

f i c e rw a s e nga ge d i n the l a w f ul e xe c ut i on of

a l e ga l duty ; a nd ( 2) the a c t i on by the de f

e nda ntc ons t i tut e d obs truc t i on orr e s i s t a nc e of tha tl a w f

ul duty . ” S l y de l l v. S t a t e , 792 S o. 2d 667, 671 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 2001) ; S . G . K . v. S t at e, 65 7 S o. 2d 12 46 , 12 47 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 95 ). In thi s c as e, ou r i nq ui ry f oc us e s on the s e c ond r e qui r e m e ntbe c a us e the r e i s no que s t i on tha tde puty B e c ht w a s i n the pr oc e s s of

c onduc t i ng a tr a f

f i c s t op f orthe purpos e of

i s s ui ng a c i t a t i on, an d th u s, h e w as en g ag ed i n th e l aw fu l ex ecu t i o n o f a l eg al d u ty. F l ori da court s have genera l l y hel d, w i th v ery l i m i t ed except i on s, that ph ys i ca l cond uctm ustac com pany offens i ve w ords t o sup po rta c on vi ct i on un der §843. 02. S e e F r a nc i s v. S t a t e , 736 S o. 2d 97, 99 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1999)

9 ( h o ld in g th a t d e f

e n d a n t’s a c tio n s o f

p h y s ic a lly b lo c k in g th e o f f ic e r ’s p a th to in v e s tig a te a b e a tin g in a n o th e rr o o m c o n s titu te d o b s tru c tio n u n d e r§ 8 4 3 .0 2 ) ; S ta te v. D e nni s , 684 S o. 2d 848, 849 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1996) ( hol di ng pol i c e di d not10

ha ve pr oba bl e c a us e t o a rr e s tde f e nda ntf orobs truc t i on w he n de f e nda ntw a s y e l l i ng stre ett erm “ ni nety ni ne” w hi ch m ea ns po l i ce w er e i n the ar eaw hi l e und er cover of f i c e r s w e r e a tt e m pt i ng drug bus tof drug de a l e r ) ; D . G . v. S t a t e , 661 S o. 2d 75, 7 6 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( f in d in g ju v e n ile ’s v e rb a l p r o te s ts a n d r e f u s a l to a n s w e ro f

f ic e r ’s q u e s tio n s , u n a c c o m p a n ie d b y p h y s ic a l o p p o s itio n o rth r e a ts , d id no tconst i tut e obstruct i on ). I n J . G . D . v. S t a t e , 724 S o. 2d 711, 711- 12 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1999) , the courthel d thatno prob abl e c ause for a rr es tfor obstruct i on exi st ed despi t e apo l i ce or de rdi r e c t i ng the de f

e nda ntt o l e a ve a n apa r tm e ntc om pl e x, de s pi t e the d e f e n d a n t’s “lo u d a n d p r o f a n e ” p r o te s ts , a n d d e s p ite th e g a th e r in g o f a n “u n ru ly c r o w d .” I d . a t 7 1 1 . T h e c o u r t ru le d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s w o r d s w e r e in s u f f ic ie n t to j ust i fy any w rong do i ng , or t o am ou ntt o a ph ys i ca l ob struct i on of the offi ce rs . S ee id . at 7 1 2 . S im il ar ly, i n D .G ., 6 6 1 S o . 2 d 7 5 , th e c o u rt ru led th at th e d ef en d an t’ s ac t i on s di d n otconst i tut e obstruct i on un der § 84 3. 02 . In thatca se , the offi ce rs w er e i nv es t i gat i ng a burgl ary. T he perpetra t or w as bel i eved t o h ave been se en he a di ng t ow a r ds the de f e nda nt ’ s hous e . W he n the of f i c e r s w oke the de f

e nda nt , he p r o te s te d “lo u d ly a n d o b n o x io u s ly ,” b u t h e n e v e rth r e a te n e d a n y o n e . I d . a t 7 6 . “T h e o f f ic e r s a rr e s te d [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] f o rd is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t b e c a u s e h e r e f u s e d to s t op y e l l i ng a f

t e rs e ve r a l w a rni ngs . ” I d. T he c our tf ound no pr oba bl e c a us e f ortheWilke rs on wa s alsose arche d a

nd arre ste d f

or : ( 1) po sse ssi on

of c rac k c oc aine , in 10 violation of section 893.13(1)( f); (2) possession of ca nnabis, in violation of section 893.13(1)( g ); (3) possession of illicit drugpara phernalia, in violation of section 893.147; and (4) obstruc tion of a law of ficer in the execution of his leg al duties. 11 a rr e s t. In W i l k erso n v . S t at e, 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 4 5 3 (F l a. D i st . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ), a case re l i ed up on by B ec ht , the courthel d thatthe st atut e a ti ss ue here w as const i tut i on al b e c a u s e th e s ta tu te p r o s c r ib e d o n ly a c ts o rc o n d u c t w h ic h o p e r a te d to p h y s ic a lly op po se an offi ce r i n the performance of l aw ful du t i es , and n otsol el y verbal i nt e rrupt i ons of

pol i c e . I d. a t456. I n W i l ke r s on, of f i c e r s ha d drug de a l e r s a nd c us t om e r s on the gr ound a nd w e r e s e a r c hi ng the m f orw e apons . T he de f

e nda nt d i rect l y an d d el i b erat el y i n t erru p t ed th e search b y yel l i n g , cu rsi n g atth e o ffi cers, re fusi ng t o l ea ve the ar ea , and g ener at i ng the sa m e c on du cti n a cr ow d thathad ga the r e d. M or e ove r , the s e a r c h t ook pl a c e on a da nge r ous c or ne rknow n f ordrug 10 a c t i vi ty . T he c our trul e d tha the rpr e s e nc e di d a m ountt o a phy s i c a l obs truc t i on of the of f i c e r ’ s a bi l i ty t o pe r f

or m hi s j ob. I d. a t456. F i nal l y, i n H . A . P . v. S t at e, 83 4 S o. 2d 23 7 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 02 ), a nothe rc a s e r e l i e d upon by B e c ht , the de f e nda ntw a s a rr e s t e d notm e r e l y f or curs i ng atoffi ce rs and ref usi ng t o l ea ve the ar ea , bu tra ther because aS W A T t ea m i n a dang er ou s s i tuat i on w as re qu i re d t o t em po ra ri l y postpo ne the execut i on of a s e a r c h w a rr a nta s the de f e nda ntha d be c om e a phy s i c a l di s tr a c t i on by s hout i ng12

l oude ra nd m or e pr of

a ne l y a s a l a r ge c r ow d ga the r e d. I d. a t238- 39. W i th r e f e r e nc e t o di s or de r l y c onduc t , F l a . S t a t . § 877. 03 pr ovi de s i n r e l e va nt p a r t: W h o e v e rc o m m its s u c h a c ts a s a r e o f a n a tu r e to c o rru p t th e p u b lic m or a l s , oroutr a ge the s e ns e of publ i c de c e nc y , ora f

f e c tthe pe a c e a nd qui e tof pe r s ons w ho m a y w i tne s s the m , ore nga ge s i n br a w l i ng or f i ght i ng ore nga ge s i n s uc h c onduc ta s t o c ons t i tut e a br e a c h of the pe a c e ordi s or de r l y c onduc t , s ha l l be gui l ty of a m i s de m e a nori n the s e c o n d d e g r e e . . . . F la . S ta t. § 8 7 7 .0 3 . S im ila rto p r o b a b le c a u s e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 8 4 3 .0 2 , p r o b a b le c a us e f orpurpos e s of

§ 877. 03 c a nnotbe ba s e d on “ m e r e w or ds . ” S e e B ut l e rv. D o w lin g , 7 5 0 S o . 2 d 6 7 4 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( f in d in g n o a r g u a b le p r o b a b le c a us e unde r§ 877. 03 w he n pl a i nt i f f w a s notus i ng pr of

a ni ty , w a s noty e l l i ng, a nd w a s nota gi t a t e d) ; s e e a l s o B e l l v. A nde r s on, 414 S o. 2d 550 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 19 82 ) ( fi nd i ng no prob abl e c ause for c ri m i nal ac t i on because w ords di d n oti nci t e a brea ch of the peace ). T he f a c t s i n thi s c a s e , vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o D a vi s unde rthe l aw , ca nn otsupp orta f

i nd i ng of even arguabl e probabl e c ause for e i ther o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e o rd is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t. F ir s t, it is u n d is p u te d th a t D a v is d id n o t p h y s ic a lly in te r f

e r e w ith o ro b s tru c t th e d e p u tie s . B e c h t te s tif ie d th a t D a v is d id n o t g e t c lo s e rto h im th a n 7 5 to 9 0 f e e t b e f o r e h is a rr e s t, B r ig h t te s tif ie d th a t D a v is13

never gotcl oserthan 4 5 t o 6 0 fee t , and D avi s t es t i fi ed thathe never gotcl oserthan t e n f e e tf r om the e nt i r e s c e ne . I n hi s de pos i t i on, D a vi s s t a t e s tha the ne ve rm a de ph ys i ca l or verbal threa t s t ow ar ds B ec ht , never s ou gh tt o i nci t e vi ol ence , and n ever t ol d the depu t i es t o g etoff hi s property. M oreover, he cl ai m s thathe approached the de put i e s w i th hi s ha nds i n the a i ri n a r e s pe c t f ul m a nne ra nd di d noty e l l , but ra ther w as “ t al ki ng . ” I n h i s deposi t i on , he st at es he on l y app roac hed t he depu t i es i ni t i a l l y be c a us e he w a s c onc e rne d tha tthe y m i ghtbe the r e t o t e l l hi m hi s c hi l dr e n, w ho ha d noty e ta rr i ve d, m i ghtha ve be e n i nj ur e d. H e onl y tur ne d ba c k t o the depu t i es t o ask i f he c ou l d d i re cttra ff i c on h i s property s o thathi s guest s, w ho had noty e ta rr i ve d, w oul d notdr i ve dow n the unl i tpor t i on of hi s pr ope r ty a nd i nt o the l a ke . A c c or di ng t o D a vi s , i tw a s onl y a f t e rhe a s ke d t o s pe a k t o B e c ht ’ s s upe r vi s or a n d w h ile h e w a s w a lk in g a w a y , th a t B e c h t a n d B r ig h t g r a b b e d h im a n d p u lle d h im back i nt o the si tuat i on . D avi s a l so cl ai m s thatthrou gh ou tbo th i nci dent s he w as w i th onl y one othe rgue s tunt i l he w a s a rr e s t e d. T ha tgue s ts a i d nothi ng thr oughout th e e n tir e in c id e n t, e x c e p t to a s k f o rB e c h t’s b a d g e n u m b e rm o m e n ts b e f o r e D a v is w a s a rr e s t e d. In hi s deposi t i on , D eput y B ri gh t , the on l y other deput y on the sc ene, s p e c if ic a lly te s tif

ie d th a t h e n e v e rc o n s id e r e d D a v is a th r e a t to h im s e lf o rto B e c h t, thatD avi s di d n otm ake “ any threa t eni ng re m arks, ” a nd thatD avi s w as arre st ed14

o n l y b e c a u s e h e y e l l e d . T h e m o s tth a tB e c h tc o u l d s a y a b o u tDa v i s u n d e rh i s o wn v e r s io n o f

th e f a c ts w a s th a t D a v is w a s s im p ly y e llin g a n d B e c h t h a d to “w a lk a w a y f r om the tr a f

f i c s t op t o s e e w ha the w a nt e d. ” I ti s c l e a rtha ti n ne i the rof the i nci dent s di d B ec htgi ve D avi s a n o pp ortun i ty t o exp l ai n h i s c on ce rns or t o g i ve a w a rni ng a boutthe e nda nge r m e ntof hi s gue s t s , w ho w oul d ha ve t o c i r c um ve ntthe d e p u tie s a n d th e s to p p e d c a rto c o n tin u e o n to th e D a v is p r o p e r ty . N e ith e ra n o w n e r ’s s im p le in q u iry a s to w h y o f f ic e r s a r e p r e s e n t o n h is p ro p er ty n o r a p er so n ’s attem p t t o b rin g a d an g er o u s s itu atio n to th e o ff icer ’s att ent i on ca n b e c on strued as ob struct i on of j ust i ce or di sorder l y c on du ct . N or ca n a c it izen b e p re clu d ed b y th e th re at o f a rr es t fro m as k in g to sp ea k to an o ff icer ’s s upe r i ororf

r om a s ki ng f

ora n of f i c e r ’ s ba dge num be r . T hos e i nqui r i e s l i ke w i s e do n o t c o n s titu te o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e o rd is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t. U n d e rth e f

a c ts a s a lle g e d b y D a v is , w e f in d th a t th e r e w a s n o a r g u a b le prob abl e c ause t o arr es tD avi s, and, there fore , w e r ever se . W e a l so re vers e that po rt i on of the di stri ctcourt ’ s opi ni on di sm i ss i ng D avi s’ fa l se arre stcl ai m un der F l ori da st at e l aw because the st andard for probable cause i s “ the sa m e und er fe dera l and F l ori da st at e l aw . ” R anki n v . E vans, 13 3 F . 3d 14 25 , 14 33 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). B.15

D a vi s a l s o a l l e ge s tha tB e c htus e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e a ga i ns thi m , r e s ul t i ng, in te ra lia , in a to rn r o ta to rc u f f , n u m b n e s s to h is th u m b , a n d a s o r e n e c k . I t is cl earl y est ab l i sh ed th atth e u se o f ex cessi v e fo rce i n carryi n g o u tan arrest c ons t i tut e s a vi ol a t i on of the F our th A m e ndm e nt . T hornt on v. C i ty of M a c on, 132 F . 3d 1395, 1400 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng G r a ha m v. C onnor , 490 U . S . 386, 394 ( 1989) ; C ottr e l l v. C a l dw e l l , 85 F . 3d 1480, 1492 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ) . W he the rthe forc e use d i s r ea sonabl e turns on “ the fa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s of e ac h p art i cul ar ca se , i ncl ud i ng the se veri ty of the cr i m e a ti ss ue, w hether the suspec tpo se s a n im m e d ia te th r e a t to th e s a f e ty o f th e o f f ic e r s o ro th e r s , a n d w h e th e rh e is a c tiv e ly r e s i s t i ng a rr e s tora tt e m pt i ng t o e va de a rr e s tby f l i ght . ” T hornt on, 132 F . 3d a t1400 (quo t i ng G ra ham , 49 0 U . S . at39 6). “ A n o ff i ce r w i l l be ent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty i f hi s a ct i on s w er e obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e – thati s, i f are as on abl e off i ce r i n the sa m e s i tuat i on w ou l d h ave bel i eved thatthe force used w as no texce ss i ve. ” Id. at14 00 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). E ven i f the arre sthad b ee n eff ec tuat ed base d o n p robabl e c ause , the di stri ct c our ti m pr ope r l y gr a nt e d the D e f e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton D a v is ’ e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e c la im . A c c e p tin g D a v is ’ v e r s io n o f th e f a c ts , a r e a s o n a b le j ury c oul d f

i nd tha tB e c ht ’ s a c t i ons i n e f f e c tua t i ng the a rr e s tc ons t i tut e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e . D a vi s w a s nots us pe c t e d of ha vi ng c om m i tt e d a s e r i ous c r i m e , he di d not16

pos e a n i m m e di a t e thr e a tt o a ny one , a nd he di d nota c t i ve l y r e s i s ta rr e s t . Y e tB e c ht g r a b b e d D a v is f

r o m b e h in d w h ile D a v is w a s f o llo w in g B e c h t’s o r d e rto r e tu rn to the ho use, pu shed hi m t o the grou nd , dragged h i m , i nt ent i on al l y i nfl i ct ed m ore pa i n w he n t ol d tha tD a vi s ha d a n i nj ur e d s houl de ra nd thr e w hi m f or c i bl y i nt o the d o g cag e i n a can i n e u n i t , al l w h i l e a co m p l i an tD av i s w as al read y i n h an d cu ffs. B ec htci t es R od ri gu ez v. F arre l l , 28 0 F . 3d 13 41 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) t o sup po rt hi s a r gum e nttha t“ gr a bb[ i ng] [ a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s ] a r m , tw i s t [ i ng] i ta r ound [ the i ndi vi dua l ’ s ] ba c k, j e r ki ng i tup hi gh t o the s houl de ra nd the n ha ndc uf f[ i ng the in d iv id u a l]” w a s n o t e x c e s s iv e ; a n d to ju s tif y h is p r o p o s itio n th a t “[ w ]h a t w o u ld ordi nari l y be c on si dere d rea sonabl e f orce do es no tbecom e e xces si ve force w hen the f or c e a ggr a va t e s ( how e ve rs e ve r e l y ) a pr e - e xi s t i ng c ondi t i on the e xt e ntof w h ic h w a s u n k n o w n to th e o f f ic e ra t th e tim e .” I d . a t 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 1 . R o d r ig u e z is e a s ily d is tin g u is h a b le f

r o m th is c a s e . F ir s t, u n lik e th e p la in tif f in R o d r ig u e z , D a v is c l a i m s he i nf

or m e d B e c hta l m os ti m m e di a t e l y tha the ha d a ba d s houl de r . S e c ond, unl i ke the of

f i c e ri n R odr i gue z , B e c htw a s a c c us e d of i nt e nt i ona l l y f

oc us i ng on the sore shou l der a s t o i nfl i ctfurther pai n. T hi rd, the ent i re i nci denti n R od ri gu ez w as a s in g le ev en t i n w h ich th e o ff icerg ra b b ed , tw isted , an d h an d cu ff ed th e p lain ti ff’s arm s ( w e des cr i bed t he i nci dentas no thi ng m ore than “ ordi nary ”) . H er e, there w e r e a tl e a s tthr e e i nc i de nt s of B e c hti nt e nt i ona l l y gr a bbi ng, pus hi ng, orpul l i ngTh ec laims , s e t f or th in th eamend e d c omp laint , a re : Co unt III , lo ss o f c on so rtium ; 11 C o untIV , ag ai n s tW i l l i am s un d e r th es t at el awth e o r

y o f re s p o n d e ats u

p e ri o r ; an d

C o unt s V I, VII , V IIIag ains t Will iams und e r M on e ll v . N e w Y or k Ci ty Dept. of Soc ial Serv ic e s, 43 6 U .S. 65 8 ( 19 78 ), alle g ingthat Will iams ins tit ute d p oli c ie s th at c ontribute d toor c a us e d D avis ’ inj urie s. 17 D a vi s ’ s houl de r– a f

t e rhe w a s ha ndc uf

f e d a nd a f t e rD a vi s i nf

orm e d B e c httha the ha d a s or e s houl de r– a nd f or c i ng hi m t o the gr ound by i nt e nt i ona l l y appl y i ng stre ss t o the shou l der. W e c om e t o a si m i l arconcl usi on on D avi s’ exce ss i ve force cl ai m un der F l or i da l a w . P ur s ua ntt o F l or i da l a w , pol i c e of f i c e r s a r e e nt i t l e d t o a pr e s um pt i on of good f a i th i n r e ga r d t o the us e of f or c e appl i e d dur i ng a l a w f ul a rr e s t , a nd offi ce rs ar e onl y l i abl e f or dam age w here the force used i s “ cl ea rl y e xces si ve. ” C i ty of M i am i v. S anders , 67 2 S o. 2d 46 , 47 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 96 ). If an o f f ic e ru s e s e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e , th e “o r d in a r ily p r o te c te d u s e o f f o r c e . . . is tra nsform ed i nt o a bat t ery. ” I d. B as ed on the fa ct s a nd re as on i ng se tforth abo ve, w e f i nd tha tthe r e i s a tr i a bl e i s s ue of f a c ta s t o w he the re xc e s s i ve f or c e w a s us e d. C. W e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of the f i ve r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s . T he 11 di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d the s e c l a i m s ba s e d on i t s gr a nt i ng of s um m a ry j udgm e nton D a v is ’ f a ls e a rr e s t a n d e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im s a n d d e c id e d n o o th e ris s u e s . B e c a us e w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s opi ni on c onc e rni ng the f a l s e a rr e s ta nd the18

ex cessi v e fo rce cl ai m s, w e m u strev erse th e fi v e d ep en d an tcl ai m s. I V . CONCL US I ON A c c or di ngl y , the or de rof the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nt d i sm i ssi n g D av i s’ cl ai m s i s R EVER SED . T h e case i s R EM A N D ED for f urther pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.