[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22

- 11197

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

ERIC GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus ANTHONY VENTRIERE, ROBERT BELL, Detectives, SHERIFF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 1 of 82 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11197

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20

- cv

- 00737

- WWB

- LHP

____________ ________

Before W ILSON , J ORDAN , and N EWSOM , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Eric Griffin appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Detectives Anthony Ventriere and Robert Bell (Detectives), and Sheriff John Mina based on qualified immunity

, in Griffin’s 10

- count malicious prosecution and false arrest suit

. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

I. Factual Background Trevor Glover reporte d to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office that two men fired handguns at him as he walked towards his
apartment building on April 27, 2016. Ventriere responded to the

scene and corroborated Glover’s story. At the scene, Glover advised Officer Robert Fische r that “he has never met or saw either of the men who attacked him, and they did not say anything or attempt to take any of his possessions.” Glover expressed his belief that the two men were friends of Gin o Nicholas, his girlfriend’s brother, who had bee n shot and killed, and that Nicholas’s friends thought Glover was friendly with Nicholas’s shooter. Glove r described the perpetrators as two black men, one under six feet tall and the other six feet and two inches tall. USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 2 of 822

- 11197 Opinion of the Court 3

Several hours after the initial in terviews, Glover notifiedVentriere that he remembered more information and could identify the two suspects. Glover then identified Appellant Griffin as the suspect who shot at him at close range. It is undisputed that Griffin is six feet and nine inches tall. Thereafter, Glover identified Griffin in a photograph lineup, stating he was “absolutely sure” Griffin was the individual who shot at him. Glove r also informed Ventriere of a text message Griffin sent to Glover’s girlfriend on April 25, 2016, in which Griffin indicated that Glover refused to look him in the eye at the night club the previous day.

The arrest affidavit that led to Griffin’s arrest w arrant did not include Glover’s initial statement verbatim

, n or the height discrepancy , but did state

, at first “Mr. Glover was unable to provide any further information at that time

. ” The affidavit stated that Glover was able to remember the shooters aft er the adrenaline and pain wore off. It also included that Glover had selected Griffin from aphotograph lineup, the text messages Griffin sent to Glover’s girlfriend, and an eyewitness account that the shooters fled in a Dodge Charger. A Florida judge s igned an arrest warrant and Griffin was subsequently arrested by a warrant unit. During his post arrest interview, Griffin admitted that he had rented a Dodge Charger and did not know if he returned it before or after the shooting occurred. Ventriere con firmed the following week, based on information he was unable to obtain the night he interviewed Griffin, that the car was returned before the shooting. After FLDE testing of the weapon Griffin had on his USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 3 of 84 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11197

person at the time of arrest, it was confirmed it was not the same gun used in the sho oting. Griffin gave an alibi that surveillance video would show he was at his parents ’ house at the time the shooting occurred , but Ventriere could not remember what he did with the information Griffin gave him about hi s parents’ surveillance camera. Ventriere completed the investigation after he receive d search warrants for Griffin’s phone days later. Griffin was later released.

Griffin filed a ten

- count complaint against Ventriere, Bell,
and Sheriff Mina. 1 Counts I and II are claims against Ventriere and Bell for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counts III and IV are claims against Ventriere and Bell for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count s V, through VIII are Florida law claims against Ventriere, Bell, and Mina for false arrest. Counts IX and Xare Florida law claims against Ventriere and Bell for malicious prosecution.

The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity gr ounds, concluding that Griffin was arrested pursuant to a valid arrest warrant and therefore cannot assert false arrest, finding that probable cause or arguable probable cause would have existed even if the omissions were included in the affidavit. Griffi n timely appealed.

1 Sheriff Mina was sued in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Orange County for the actions for Ventriere and Bell. USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 4 of 822

- 11197 Opinion of the Court 5

II. Standard of Review

We “ review [] de novo a district court’s disposition of a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, applying the same legal standards as the district court. ” Durruthy v. Pastor , 351 F.3d 1080, 1084 (11th Cir. 2003). All issues of material fact are resolved in favor of the plaintiff, and then, under that version of the facts, the legal question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is determined. Id.

To re ceive qualified immunity, a public official must prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred

. Lee v. Ferraro , 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). We must determine “whether the

act complained of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within,or reasonably related to, the outer perimeter of an official’s discretionary duties.” Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic , 458 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2006). If the official was acting within his discretionary duties with respect to the claims raised in the complaint, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to prove “(1) the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. ” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland , 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004).

III. DiscussionGriffin argues on appeal that summary judgment was improper here for t wo overarching reasons. First, he argues genuine issues of material fact exist in two instances : (1) as to whether a USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 5 of 86 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11197
judge would have signed a warrant if the omitted information was included

, and (2) as to the timing of Griffin’s arrest

. Second, heargues that qualified immunity cannot attach because the defendants withheld exonerating evidence fro m the arrest warrant and failed to investigate such evidence. We consider each issue in turn.

Griffin first contends that a jury should decide whether the omissions from the arrest affidavit would cause a judge not to sign the warrant. He is mistaken

. The standard for determining theexistence of probable cause is the same under both Florida and federal law. Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir. 1998)

. The Florida Supreme Court has held that when analyzing alleged omissions from probable cause affidavits, “(1) the reviewing courtmust determine whether the omitted material, if added to the affidavit , would have defeated probable cause, and (2) the reviewing

court must find that the omission resulted from intentional or reckless police conduct that amounts to deception.” Johnson v. State

, 660 So.2d 648, 65 6 (Fla. 1995) (emphasis added)

. Further, the prohibition of police officers knowingly making false statement s in an arrest affidavit applies when the resulting affidavit is “insufficient to establish probable cause” without an officer’s false statements.
U

nited States v. Kirk , 781 F.2d 1498, 1502 (1 1th Cir. 1986). Here, the affidavit included enough information to support a warrant.The detectives relied on text messages suggesting motive, the victim picking Griffin out of a photo lineup, and an eyewitness statement that the perpetrators fled in a Dodge Charger and knowledge USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 6 of 822

- 11197 Opinion of the Court 7
that Griffin was driving a Dodge Charger around the time of the incident to support a finding of probable cause.

Griffin also argues that his false arrest claim was wrongly dismissed because there are genuine issues of material fact as to the timing of the arrest. However, because Griffin was arrested pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, and all questioning by the detectives occurred subsequent to the lawful arrest, there are no material issues of fact and his false arrest claim was properly dismissed

. Second, Griffin maintains that arguable probable cause does
not exist because reasonable officers in the same circumstances could not have believed that probable cause existed as to Griffin. To establish a federal malicious prosecution claim under § 1983, Griffin must prove a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonab le seizures in addition to the elements of the common law tort of malicious prosecution. Wood v. Kessler

, 323 F.3d 872, 881 (11th Cir. 2003). The elements of malicious prosecution are: “ (1) a criminal prosecution institute d or continued by the present de fendant; (2) with malice and without probable cause; (3) th at terminated in the plaintiff accused’s favor; and (4) caused damage to the plaintiff accused. ” Id. at 882.
Here, Griffin alleges that the detectives ’ disregard of Glover’s initial statement that he had never met the shooters and rel iance on the subsequent statement where Glover identifies Griffin as the shooter are enough to defeat probable cause. To determine if probable cause, or arguable probable cause

, exists with respect to a malicious pros ecution claim, the court looks to the USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 7 of 88 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11197
crimes charged in the arrest warrant. Williams v. Aguirre
, 9 65 F.3d
1147, 1163

– 64 (11th Cir. 2020)

. To succeed, Griffin must also establish “ (1) that the legal process justifying his seizure was constitutionally infirm and (2) that his seizure would not otherwise be justified without legal process.” Id. at 116 5

. Griffin cannot meet

t his burden , however, because the legal process justifying hi s seizure was proper. Based on the experience and explanations of the detectives, sufficient probable cause existed

. 2 Because the false arrest claims were properly dismissed andthe detectives demonstrated probable cause for the remaining malicious pro secution claims, we AFFIRM

. AFFIRMED.

2 Griffin also argues that qualified immunity is improper because the detectives failed to investigate readily available exonerating ev idence. This argument fails because the evidence Griffin relies on was obtained after his lawful arrest and was investigated in a timely manner. USCA11 Case: 22-11197 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 12/28/2022 Page: 8 of 8