FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L 20 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1272 0

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00131 -CV -FT M-29-SPC ROSE MARI E REYES, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HAEL MASCHMEIER, Sg t., i nd iv id ua ll y , M I KE S C O TT , i n h i s o f

f i c i a l c ap a c i t y a s Le e C o u n t y Sh eri ff, a p ol it ic al su bd iv is io n o r co un ty offi ce, Defen da nt s- App el le es , ROD NE Y S HO AP , in his official c apacity as L ee Co un ty Sheri ff, a p ol it ic al su bd iv is io n o r co un ty offi ce, Defen da nt .

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (A pr il 20, 200 6)Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District J udg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ng by

desig nation. Drug Abuse ResistanceEducation. This is a prog ram de signe d to teach e lementary 1 sc ho ol c hil dr e n a

bo ut thedang e rs of

dr ug s. 2 Before BIRC H a nd MARCU S, Circuit Judges, and MIL LS , D istrict Judg e. * BIRC H, Circuit Judge: In thi s c as e, w e re vie w anua nc edappl ic at ion of the F ourth A m en dmen t i n the publ ic em

ploy m ent realm . Rose Marie Rey es broughta claim under 42 U. S. C. § 19 83 a lle gin g th at

she w as unc onst itu tio na llyse iz edw he n sh e w as struc k by Michael Maschmeier, her supervisor and a sergeant in the county sheriff’ s office, an d su bse que ntl y be rate d in a n op en doo r m ee tin g. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e claim , r easoning that the force used was not unreasonable, but we, however, conclude that there wa s never a seizur e w ithin the constitu tional m eaning of that w or d a nd A FF IR M o n th at gr ound .
I. BACKG ROUND On 12 Septem

ber 2003, Maschm eier, the newlyselected head of the D ARE pr ogr am f

or L ee Co unt y a nd R ey es ’ s ne w sup er vis or in the she ri ff ’ s de part m en t, 1 had been talking to his captain abou t the deficiencies in the county DA RE pr ogr am . T he c ap ta in a ske d f or the D A REf

ile , w hic h M as ch m ei er

ha d to r etri ev eThe injury was, howe ver, c overe d by worke rs’ c ompensation. 2 3 fro m hi s o ffi ce. Ret ur ni ng fro m

hi s o ffi ce, Ma sc hm ei er s aw Reyes wai ti ng forhi m . Maschm eier approached Rey es from behind and , w ithou t warning, suddenl y struck her in the back of the head w ith a three-ring bi nder containing the DA REprogram m at eria ls. Ma sc hmei er

c om ple te d hi s mee tin g w ith the c ap ta in, w al ke d ba ck pa st Reyes, an d i nd ic at ed th athe was re ad y to m eetwit h h er ab ou t t he DARE pro gr am . Ma sc hmei er

ge stu re d f

or Re y es to co m e int o hi s of fi ce w he re he be rate d he r so badly that this th en thirteen-y ear veteran of the L ee County Sherif f’ s office f

led th e o ffi ce i n t ears . Fo r purpose s of

our inq uiry , w e as sume tha t M as ch m ei er struc k R ey es in the ne ckwit ho utwarn in g o r pu rp os e. Thi s co nt actag gr av at ed Reyes’s pr ev io us two ne ck inj ur ie s. F or

his part , Ma sc hmei er

m ai nta ins that R ey es e xa gge rate s th e 2 severity of both the “ tap” that signaled hi s knowledge that she was there to m eet wit h h im an d t he in ve ct iv e u se d i n t he m eet in g. A s t h e n e w l y a s s i g n e d o f f i c e r i n c h ar g e o f

t h e D A R E a n t i d ru g p r o g r a m, M a s c h me i e r

h a d l e ar n e d t h a tR e ye s a n d o t h e r s u b o r d i n a t e s w e r e g o i n g h o me ins te adof r etur nin g to the she ri ff ’ s of fi ce w he n th ei r re spon sib ili tie s a t the sc hool we re over. Rey es had requested this m eeting with Maschm eier bec ause she had4

learned that he had spoken to the administration at her school about her perform ance there . Maschm eier believed that Re y es wa s working for only a fe w hours per wee k and was spending th e re st of the tim e at hom e. Maschmeier co nf ro nte d R ey es w ith the se de ta ils a t the m ee tin g. R ey es a cknow le dge d th at the m ee tin g in the of

fi ce e nde d w he n sh e got

ups et : Q : D id y ou f

ee l a s th ough S er ge an t M as ch m ei er w as in some m an ne r on the da y of the inc ide nt h old ing y ou i n hi s of fi ce a ga ins t y our

w ill ? [Rey es] A: I did feel, because he w as my supervisor.

. . . . Q : A nd y ou u lti m at el y got ups et a nd l ef t hi s of fi ce , r igh t? A : Y es . Q: H e w asn’ t able to stop y ou from leaving his o ffice , w as he? A: N o, sir. Q: D id he ever sayto y ou, Stop, y ou can’ t leave? A: N o, sir. Q: D id he try to grab y ou and keep y ou from leaving the office? A: N o, sir. R2 -4 9, Pl ai nt iff ’s Depo si ti on at 5 9– 60 . Re y es f ile d su it ag ai nst

Ma sc hmei er , in his ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity , a nd the Sheriff of L ee County , in his official c apacity , w ho at various tim es wa s either Mi ke S co tt or

Ro dne y S hoap. R eg ar din g th e cl ai m a ga ins t M as ch m ei er , the district court granted summ aryj udgm ent on alternative ground s. F irst, it held that the re w as no e xc es siv e fo rc e vio la tio n of the F ourth A m en dmen t. S ec ond, it he ld tha t M as ch m ei er

w as pr ote ct edbyqua lif

ie d im m uni tybe cause it

w as not c le ar ly5

established th at these actions would consti tute a constitut ional vio lation su ch that Maschm eier w as on noti ce of his personal liability . As to the sheriff, the c ourt state d a ga in tha t the re w as no c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n bu t he ld i n th e al te rn at ive tha t, e ve n if

Ma sc hmei er

vio la te d R ey es ’ s F ourth A m en dmen t righ ts, the re w as no ev ide nc e tha t the she ri ff

w as r es pons ibl e fo r that vi ola tio n. On appeal, the parties ar gue about h ow forc e m ust be used to m ake a seiz ure unr ea sonable und er

the F ourth A m en dmen t. T he se arg umen ts s kip a n im porta nt step in Fourth Am endm ent analy sis. In the subsequent section , w e do not reach the questio n of whether Maschm eier’ s actions were unreasonable because there wa s no Fourth Am endm ent seizure. For this rea son, we do notaddress the district court’ s conclusio ns that there wa s no excessive force, that Maschm eier w as en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i mm

u n i t y, an d t h att h e s h er i ff wa s n o t re s p o n s i b l e f

o r R eyes ’s i n ju r y.

II. D ISCU SSION W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n r eg ar din g su mm ary j udgmen t on a § 198 3 claim

de novo. Harris v. Coweta County , 433 F. 3d 80 7, 811 (11th Cir. 2005 ). W e use the same legal standards as the district court and draw evidentiary in fere nc es in fav orof t he no nm ov in g p art y . Id.6

In r el ev an t part , T he Ci vil Ri ght s A ct of 187 1 st at es : E ve rype rs on w ho, und er c olo r of [ state la w ] . . . sub

j ec ts, or cause s to be sub

j ec te d, a ny c iti ze n of

the U nit edS ta te s . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or imm uniti es se cu re d bythe Co nst itu tio n a nd l aw s, sha ll be li ab le to the party injure d in an action at law, suit in equ ity , or other pr ope r pr oc ee din g f

or r ed re ss. 42 U . S. C. § 19 83. Ma sc hmei er , w he n pe rf or ming his dut ie s a s ase rg ea nt i n th e Le e County Sherif

f’ s office, is a state ac tor for purposes of § 198 3. T herefor e, w he n he a ct s un de r the c olo r of state la w , Ma sc hmei er

m aynot de pr ive Re y es of any rights secured by the Constitu tion, includi ng the Fourth Am endm ent. R ey es al le ge s t ha t M as ch m ei er v io la te d h er Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . T he appl ic at ion of

the F ourth A m en dmen t i n un iqu e se tti ngs, suc h a s th e em plo y m en t se tti ng w e co nsi de r tod ay , pr es en ts d if fi cu lt iss ue s. O n th e one ha nd, publ ic servants “ are not relegated to a w atere d-down version of consti tutio nal rig ht s.” Garrit y v. New J ers ey , 38 5 U.S. 4 93 , 50 0, 8 7 S . Ct. 6 16 , 62 0 (1 96 7) . On the oth er ha nd, “ nothin g in the F ourth A m en dmen t e ndow s pu bli c em plo y ee s w ith gr eate r w orkpl ac e ri ght s th an tho se e nj oy edbythe ir c ount er part s in the pr iva te se ct or . ” D ri eb el v. Ci tyof Mi lw au ke e, 298 F . 3d 6 22, 637 ( 7th Ci r. 200 2) . T he se cases bookend th e contours of the Fourth Amendm ent inqu iry posed by this case. Fr om the out se t, w e ar e re mind edof the c onc erns r eg ar din g th e Fi rs t7

Amendm ent in the gov ernment workplace. In that context, the Supreme Court obse rv edthat the re is a “ co mm on- se nse r ea liz at ion that go ve rn m en t of fi ce s c oul d not functio n if everyem

ploy m ent decision b ecame a c onsti tutio nal m atter. ” Connick v. My ers, 461 U.S . 138, 143, 103 S. Ct. 1684 , 1688 (1983). T hus, it m ay be that mee tin gs i n go ve rn m en t of fi ce s are sim

plynot c onst itu tio na l m atte rs , w hic h w oul d m ak e it unne ce ssaryto dis cu ss w he the r the y are “ re as onable w orkpl ac e se iz ur es . ” H ow ev er , the S upr eme Co urt ha s c au tio ne d us a ga ins t Fo ur th Am en dm en t p ro cl am at io ns th atare d iv or ced fro m th ei r co nt ex ts . See, e.g ., Mi ch ig an v. Ch es te rn ut , 48 6 U.S. 5 67 , 57 2, 1 08 S. Ct. 1 97 5, 1 97 9 (1 98 8) . T he re fo re , w e co nti nue w ith the F ourth A m en dmen t a na ly sis de spi te our intuit ion , inform ed by comm on sense, that not every m eeting is a constitu tional m atter. In r el ev an t part , the F ourth A m en dmen t st at es , “ [t ] he r igh t of the pe opl e to be se cu re in the ir

pe rs ons, hou se s, pape rs , a nd e ff ec ts, a ga ins t un re as onable se ar ch es a nd s ei zu re s, sha ll not be vio la te d. ” T he F ourth A m en dmen t br oa dly de cl ar es ar igh t of

the pe opl e to b e fr ee f

ro m c erta in ty pe s of

intru sio n, w hic h r igh t co urts c onstru e as ali mit on g ove rn m en t a ct ion . F or the re to be li ab ili tyin thi s ca se , the n, the re m

ust be agov ernmen t se iz ur e an d th at se iz ur e m

ust be un reas on ab le . Evan s v . Hig ht owe r, 11 7 F .3d 13 18 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Bec au se cla im s b ro ug htun de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ar e co nt ex t s pe ci fic , a8

re vie w of pr ior de ci sio ns i s he lpf

ul i n di sc ernin g ho w the F ourth A m en dmen t ap p l i es i n t h e p u b l i c e m

p l o ymen tco n t ex t . We b eg i n wi t h t h e S u p re m e C o u rt ’s tr eatmen t of

w orkpl ac e se ar ch es . T he S upr eme Co urt ha s appl ie d th e Fo urth Amendm ent in the private em ploy m ent setting, hold ing th at citizens have privacy interests in their work spaces, and, there fore, em ploy ees have a pr otectable, re as onable e xpe ct at ion of pr iva cya ga ins t w orkpl ac e se ar ch es . S ee Ma nc usi v. DeFo rte , 39 2 U.S. 3 64 , 36 7, 8 8 S . Ct. 2 12 0, 2 12 3 (1 96 8) . W he n th e intru sio n w as byagov ernmen t e m plo y ee ’ s su pe rv iso r, that i s, not by the police, the Court concluded in fragmented plurality opini ons th at w hen th ere was a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy, th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t s ti ll ap pl ie d. See O’ Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S . 709, 718, 107 S. Ct. 1492 , 1498 (1987). In O’ Connor, an em

ploy ee of a

publi c hospital was investigated as part of an internal inq uiry bythe hos pit al a dmini str at ion . I d. T he Co urt w as c onc erne d w ith

“ ba la nc [i ng] the na tur e an d qu al ityof the intru sio n on the ind ivi dua l’ s F ourth A m en dmen t i nte re sts a ga ins t the im portance of the governm ental interests alleged to justify t h e i n tru s i o n . ” I n t h e c a s e o f s e ar c h e s c o n d u c t e d b y a publ ic e m plo y er , w e m

ust ba la nc e the inv as ion of

the em plo y ee s’ le git im at e ex pe ct at ion s of pr iva cya ga ins t the gove rn m en t’ s ne edf

or sup er vis ion , c ontro l, a nd the effic ient operation of the workplace. Id . at 7 19 –2 0, 1 07 S. Ct. at14 98 –9 9 (a lt erat io n i n o rig in al an d c it at io ns omit te d) .Seizures of public employ ees, in c ircumstance s dissim ilar to those of this case , have 3 been r eviewe d elsewhe re. See , e.g ., Driebe l, 298 F.3d at 627; Ag uilera v. B aca , 394 F. Supp. 2d 12 03 , 1 21 4 ( C.D . Cal. 2 00 5) (h old ing that sh e ri ff ’s de pu tie s w e reno t se ize d f or F ou rth Amendment purpose s when orde red to re main at work to bequestioned in conne ction with an int e rn a l in ve sti g atio n) ; U nit e d St ate s v . F a g a n, 28 M. J. 64 , 6 9 ( C.M .A . 1 98 9) (o bs e rv ing that a marine instruc ted by

his chain of c ommand to remain at a fa cility for f inge rprinting was not seized for purpose s of the F ourth Amendment). In Delg ado, the Court conc luded that worke rs in two fac tories wer e not seized for 4 Fourth Amendment purposes w hen the INS placed a g ents nea r the e x its of the fac tories. 466 U.S. at 218, 104 S. Ct . at 1763. 9 T hus, w e co nc lud e tha t the F ourth A m en dmen t r eg ula te s su pe rv iso r co nduc t i n th e governm ent workplace, even if the extent and m anner of that re gulatio n is unclear unde r the S upr eme Co urt’ s c as es . Ha ving established th at the Fourth Amendm ent governs workplace sear ches by gov ernmen t su pe rv iso rs , w e turn to theque sti on o f se iz ur es bygov ernmen t s u p e r v i s o r s . We c a n n o tf i n d e x p r e s s r e s o l u t i o n i n e i t h e r o u r o w n o r S u p r e me Co urt de ci sio ns r eg ar din g su pe rv iso rs se iz ing pub lic e m plo y ee s a t w ork. W e do, 3 however, find guid ance r egarding seizures in workplaces. “ [W ] hen people are at w ork th ei r fr ee dom

to m ove about

ha s be en m ea nin gf

ull y r es tr ic te d, not

bythe ac tio ns o f la w e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ci al s, but

bythe w orke rs ’ vol unt ary obl iga tio ns t o the ir e m plo y er s. ” I N S v. D el ga do, 466 U . S. 210 , 218 , 104 S . Ct . 175 8, 176 3 (1984). T hus, the Supreme Court im plicitly rec ogni zes that volun taryworkplace 4 obl iga tio ns m aype rm

iss ibl y be c ontra ste d w ith the kin d of li mits on move m en tAt this point , we disting uish betwee n the g overnme nt as law e nforc er and g overnme nt 5 as employ er. SeeDriebe l, 298 F.3d at 637 ( “[I ]n cases involving theconstitutional rights of police off icer s, courts must disti ng uish betwee n a police de partment’s a ctions in its capacity as an employ er and its actions as the law e nforc ement arm of the state.” ). 10 that result from

law enforce m ent action. W e conclude, there fore, that, a s an 5 initial m atter, a claim

that a governm ent superviso r has seized a publ ic em ploy ee in v iol at ion of

the F ourth A m en dmen t m ust a lle ge c ir cu m sta nc es that i m pli cate m or e tha n th e obl iga tio ns tha t ari se f ro m the e m plo y m en t r el at ion shi p. T his af fi rm s ou r co nc lus ion that mee tin gs atte nde d bygov ernmen t e m plo y ee s are not se iz ur es f or pur pose s of the F ourth A m en dmen t. H ow ev er , w orkpl ac e int er ac tio ns c an be co m e se iz ur es . C f. D el ga do, 466 U . S. a t 21 5, 104 S . Ct . a t 17 62 ( obse rv ing that a c onse nsua l e nc ount er

w ith the pol ic e be co m es ase iz ur e re gul at edbythe F ourth A m en dmen t w he n th e int er loc uto r is arr es te d) . S uc h ase iz ur e w oul d be “ a gove rn m en ta l t ermina tio n of fr ee dom of m ove m en t, ” Br ow er

v. Co unt y of

I ny o, 489 U . S. 593 , 597 , 109 S . Ct . 1378 , 138 1 ( 1989 ), in ci rc um sta nc es w he n “ a re as onable pe rs on w oul d ha ve believed that he was not fre e to leave, ” Chesternut, 486 U.S . at 573, 108 S. Ct. at 1979 ( quot at ion s om

itt ed ). T he c le ar es t e xa m ple of thi s ty pe of

tr an sf or m at ion is from a citizen’ s consensu al conversation with law e nforcement personnel to an arre stof t ha t ci ti zen . See Del ga do , 46 6 U.S. at21 5, 1 04 S. Ct. at17 62 .Al tho ug h w e re so lvethec a se by a da pti ng thetr a dition a l F ou rth A me nd me nt ana ly sis to 6 the workpla ce, w e leave for another day —principally

beca use the a rg ument was ne ither pr e se nte d n or

brie fe d to us —th e qu e sti onof wh e the r the remus t beg ov e rn me ntal auth ority to se ize be fo rethe rec a n b e a n u nlawf ul g ov e rn me nt s e izur e . With th is c a ve at, w e do no t me a n to disturb any

statutory inquiry reg arding the scopeof employment or color of state law analy sis. Howeve r, insofar

as the F ourth Amendment is a limitation on go v e rn me nt po we r, it s e e ms rea sonable to inquire into the authority for the c ontested exerciseof coe rciveg overnme ntal power prior to pursuing a formulaic analy sis of whether the ac tions of state employ ees a ppear imp ro pe r. Suc h a

dis tin c tio n f

oc us e s c laims of

c on sti tution a l vi olatio n o n a c tio ns pr op e rl y attributable to the g overnme nt, leaving other c laims to state tort law. 11 A s to the m atte r be fo re us, Re y es ’ s a lle ga tio n f ai ls t o st at e a cl ai m

und er the Fo urth A m en dmen t. S he a ske d to m ee t w ith Ma sc hmei er in the c ont ex t of

his posi tio n a s he r supe rv iso r. I n th e re sul tin g mee tin g, Ma sc hmei er dis cu sse d th e am ountof tim e Rey es spent condu cting the du ties of her off ice and counseled her that, under the circ um stances, going hom e instead of returning to the office w as una cc ep table . S uc h mee tin gs are the da ilybus ine ss o f the pub lic se rv an t, a nd, althoug h we find that Rey es’ s allegations o f Maschmeier’ s conduct, if true, are dis tur bin g a s apr of

es sio na l m atte r, he r al le ga tio ns d o no t r emove the c as e fr om the e m plo y m en t se tti ng. T ha t i s, Re y es ’ s a lle ga tio ns d o no t c ha nge the fu nda m en ta l dy na mic be tw ee n he r an d M as ch m ei er f ro m a n e m plo y m en t relationship into a situatio n where Maschm eier is ac ting as a law e nforcer . 6 Fu rthe rmor e, the m ee tin g be tw ee n R ey es a nd M as ch m ei er w as not transformed into a Fourth Amendm ent seizure byMaschm eier’ s conduct. Rey es pr ovi de s no e vid en ce that i ndi cate s ar es tr ai nt o n he r ab ili tyto m ove . A lth ough12

R e ye s c l a i ms t h a ts h e f

e l tl i k e s h e w a s n o tab l e t o l e a v e t h e me e t i n g , t h o s e c l a i ms are based in the sup ervisor-em ploy ee r elationshi p and are there fore not indicators tha t so m ethin g m or e ha d tr an sf or m edthe m ee tin g in to a F ourth A m en dmen t seizure. H owever , most tellin gly , R ey es left the meeting at the m om ent of her choosin g. W e conclude that the interaction between Ma schm eier a nd Rey es does no t p res en t t he ex erci se of g ov ern m en ta l au th or it y ak in to an arre st . Nor is our analy sis changed by the cases that support the prop ositio n that co nta ct c an f unc tio na llyse iz e a pe rs on. S ee H ar ri s v. Co w et a Co unt y , 433 F . 3d 807, 816 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( “ [R ] am ming [ a] ve hic le und er

the f ac ts a lle ge d he re , if be lie ve d byaj ury , w oul d vi ola te [ the vic tim ’ s] c onst itu tio na l righ t t o be f re e fr om ex ce ssi ve f

or ce during ase iz ur e. ”) ; P ru itt v. Ci tyof

Mo ntg omery , 771 F . 2d 1 475, 1478 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( “ [T ] he sho oti ng i tse lf w as a‘ se iz ur e’ w ith in the m ea nin g of the Fourth Amendm ent.”) . Under a liberal re ading of tho se cases, the contact at iss ue in thi s c as e fa ils to ap pr oa ch the e stabli she d th re shol d, w hic h le ft the vic tim in e ac h c as e unable to m ove . T hus, e ve n a ddi ng the gr atuit ous co nta ct a t i ssu e in thi s c as e to the sub se que nt j ob- re la te d mee tin g f ai ls t o tr an sf

or m the a ct ion s in questio n into a constitutio nal seizure. Fo r the se r ea sons , w e co nc lud e tha t R ey es w as not se iz edf or pur pose s of the Fourth Amendm ent. B ecause there wa s no Fourth Am endm ent seizure, thereRow e v. Sc hr e ibe r, 13 9 F .3 d 1 38 1, 13 82 n. 2 ( 11 th C ir . 1 99 8) (“ We m a y a ff irm a 7 decision on any

adequate g rounds, including g rounds other than the g rounds upon which the district court ac tually

relied.” ). 13 wa s no Fourth Am endm ent violatio n and there is no liabili ty under 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 for either Ma schm eier, indiv idually , or Sheriff Scott, in his o fficial capa ci ty . W e do n ot r ea ch the oth er gr ound s di sc uss edbythe dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e dispo sition of this case. 7

III. C ONC LUS ION W e have re viewed Re y es’ s claim that her supervisor’ s conduct v iolated her ri ght s un de r the F ourth A m en dmen t, w hic h f orbid s un re as onable se ar ch es a nd seizures. W e do not cons ider w hether Maschmeier’ s conduct was unreasonable, be cau se th ere was no sei zu re i n t hi s ca se . AF FIR MED .