FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T Aug . 31, 2009 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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 90 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 60 47 6 C V-WPD MARLENE W HITTIER, as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e of Ant ho ny Diot ai ut o d ecea se d a ndin di vi du al ly, ANDREW

DIOTAIUTO, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us ANDRE BRUNA, in di vi du al ly, SEAN VISNERS, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st31 , 20 09 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d S ILER, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sitting * by designation.And re Br un a an d S ean Vis ne rs , two off ic ers with t he Cit y

of S un ris e, Fl or id a, Po li ce Dep art m en t, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g i n p artth ei r m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. Bru naan d Vi sn ers were m em be rs of aSp eci al W eap on s an d Tac ti cs (SWAT ) te am th atco nduc te d arai d o n P la in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee Mar le ne Whi tt ie r’s ho m e, whi ch sh e sh aredwith h er s on , Antho ny Diot ai ut o. Dur in g t he rai d, Di ot ai ut o was sh otan d k il le d. Whit ti er b ro ug hta 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n, b oth i nd iv idua ll y an d a s p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve forDio ta iu to ’s es ta te , aga in stsev eral m em be rs of t he SWAT team

all eg in g, in te r a li a , Bru naan d Vis ne rs vi ol at edhe r so n’s Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts when th ey en te redhe r ho m e witho utfir stkn oc ki ng an d a nn ou nc in g t he ir p res en ce. Aft er ex te ns iv e d is co ve ry , Bru naan d Vi sn ers m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g t he y were en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y an d n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is te d a s t o wh ethe r a kn oc k andan no un ce o ccu rred . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he ir m ot io n a s t o Whi tt ie r’s kn oc k- an d- an no un ce cl ai m . Becau se Bru naan d Vi sn ers are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y , we no w rev ers e.

I. FACTS InJu ly 200 5, o ne of An th on y Dio ta iu to ’s nei gh bo rs in fo rm edth e Ci ty of Su nr is e Po li ce Dep art m en t (S un ris e p ol ic e) tha t Di ot ai ut o was sel li ng lar ge qu an ti ti es of c an nabi s an d c oc ai ne fro m hi s re si de nc e. Bas edup onth is 2in fo rm at io n, l aw en fo rcem en t b eg ananin ve st ig at io n o f Dio ta iu to ’s dru g a ct iv it y ,

whi chin cl ud edsu rv ei ll an ce o f th e Whit ti er/ Dio ta iu to res id en ce an d a“ co nt ro ll ed bu y ” o f m ari

juan a b y a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t. Inad di ti on to ev id en ce tha t Dio ta iu to was s el li ng il le ga l n arco ti cs in hi s h om e, th e in ve st ig at io n a ls o re ve al ed Dio ta iu to carr ie d aha nd gu n o n h is pe rs on at a ll ti m es an d k ep t a l oa de d s ho tg un in hi s b edro om

clo se t. On Au gu st3, 2 00 5, a s ta te cir cu itjud ge si gn eda warra ntforth e Su nr is e po li ce t o s earc h t he Whi tt ie r/Di ot ai ut o h om e. Bas edup on Dio ta iu to ’s dru g act iv ity an d p os se ss io n o f fi rearm s, the Sunr is e p ol ic e cl as si fie d t he warran t as

“ hi gh ris k,” whi ch th e Su nr is e p ol ic e d efi ne as “ in vo lv in g a ct s o f vi ol en ce o r po te nt ia l ac ts of v io le nc e.” The Sunr is e p ol ic e u se a SWA T tea m inth e se rv ic e o f al l “ hi gh ris k” warran ts , andth us a SWA T tea m was a ss em

bl edto serve th e warra nton th e Whit ti er/ Dio ta iu to res id en ce. Inpre parat io n fo r th e se rv ic e o f th e warra nt , th e Su nr is e p ol ic e m ad e a SWA T op erat io na l p lan. Th is pl anin di cat edDio ta iu to so ldil le ga l n arco ti cs fro m hi s h om e, ha d acri m in al hi st ory , andpo ss es se d t wo fi rearm s— a se m i-aut om at ic ha nd gu n c arri edon hi s p ers on an d ash ot gu n k ep t i n h is be dr oo m clo se t. The pl an al so cal le d fo r aneig ht -m anSWAT team to ex ecu te th e warra nt ; a t eam lea de r was res po ns ib le forkn oc ki ng an d a nn ou nc in g t he pre se nc e o f th e SWAT tea m pri orto 3en try, whil e ap pe ll an ts Bru naan d Vi sn ers were p os it io ne d “ in th e st ack .” The

m em be rs of t he SWAT team

rece iv edan d re vi ewedth e in fo rm at io n i n t he op erat io na l p la n dur in g abri efi ng th atwas h el d i n the earl y m orni ng ho ur s o f Aug us t 5 , 20 05 . 1 Fo ll owi ng th e b rie fin g, atjus t af te r 6: 00 a.m . on th atsame day , th e SWAT te am arri ve d a t the Whi tt ie r/Di ot ai ut o re si de nc e to ex ecu te th e warra nt . Accor di ng to th e te st im on y

of t he off

ic ers , th e SWAT tea m

lea de r ap pr oa ch edth e d oo r, kn oc ke d l ou dl y

sev eral ti m es , andan no un cedth e p res en ce o f th e Su nr is e p ol ic e an d t he sea rch warran t. Fo urte enpo li ce o ffi cers pre se ntat t he sce ne tes ti fie d t he y he arda kn oc k a ndan no un ce. Onl y a si ng le off

ic er d idno t h ear akn oc k a nd an no un ce. Des pi te th e fac t tha t n earl y ev ery of fic er p res en t h earda lo udan d fo rcef ul kn oc k a ndan no un ce, n ota si ng le ne ig hb orhe arda kn oc k o r an an no un cem en t o f th e p ol ic e p res en ce. At l eas t thr ee n ei ghbo rs tes ti fie d t he y were li st en in g a ndwou ldha ve be enab le to he ar s uc h a n a nn ou nc em en t i f itha d oc cu rred . Nex t, the SWAT team

lea de r si gn al edforth e b reac h t eam to op enth e fro nt do or . After the do orwas p rie d o pe n, the SWAT team en te redth e h om e an d Visners did not attend this briefing ; he instead wa s privately briefe d by

the SWAT team 1 leade r at a

pproxi mately

5:40 a.m. the same morning .

4en co un te redDio ta iu to , who was i ns tru ct edto “ ge t o n t he gro un d.” Dio ta iu to di d

no t co m pl y with t he ord er an d i ns te adranto hi s b edro om . Brunaan d Vi sn ers fo ll owe d i n p ur su an t, k ic ke d o pe n t he be dr oo m do or , andfol lo wedDio ta iu to in si de . Accor di ng to th e te st im on y of t he off

ic ers , Dio ta iu to en te redhi s cl os et , rack eda gu n, an d p oi nt editat t he off ic ers . Bot h B ru naan d Vi sn ers were y el li ng atDio ta iu to to pu t the gu n d own . They th enop en edfir e, an d Di ot ai ut o fe ll ba ck in to th e cl os et . From a se at edpo si ti on in th e cl os et , Dio ta iu to be ga n t o ra is e h is gu n a ga in . Bot h o ffi cers y el le d a t Di ot ai ut o t o dro p t he gu n; th ei r co m m an ds , ho wev er, were di sr eg ard ed . Brunaan d Vi sn ers fir edag ai n, an d Di ot ai ut o was ki ll ed . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws “ de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s d is po si ti on of asu m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Dur ru th y v. Pas to r , 35 1 F .3d10 80 , 10 84 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W e res ol ve all is su es of m at eri al factin fav orof the pl ai nt iff , andth en , un de r th at ve rs io n o f th e fac ts , det erm in e th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Id.

5III. DISC USSION

“ Qua li fie d i m

m un it y pro te ct s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s p erfo rm in g d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on s fr om

su it s i n t he ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es un le ss th ei r co nduc t v io la te s ‘clear ly establ is he d s ta tu to ry or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts of wh ic h areas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own .’ ” Dalry mpl e v. Ren o , 33 4 F .3d99 1, 9 94 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ti ng Hop e v. Pel

ze r , 53 6 U.S. 7 30 , 73 9, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 5 (2 00 2) ). “ [T]o rece iv e qua li fie d i m

m un it y , an o ffi ci al m

us t fi rs t es tabl is h tha t ‘he was act in g withi n t he sco pe of h is di sc ret io na ry au th or it y when th e al le ge dl y

wron gf ul act s oc cu rred .’ ” McCu ll ough v. Ant ol in i , 55 9 F .3d12 01 , 12 05 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Lee v . Ferr ar o , 28 4 F .3d11 88 , 11 94 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )).

“ If the off ic ia l was act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s d is cret io na ry au th or it y . . . th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e p la in ti ff t o s ho w th atth e o ffi ci al is no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y .” Sk

op v. Cit y o f At la nt a , 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 –3 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) .

“ To o ve rco m e qua li fie d i m m un it y , th e p la in ti ff 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 ht was cle arl y

est ab li sh edat 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 ). “ The rel ev an t, di sp os it iv e in qu iry in d et erm in in g wh ethe r a ri gh t i s cl earl y est ab li sh edis whet he r itwou ldbe cle ar t o areas on ab le off ic er tha t h is co nduc t was un la wfu l i n t he 6si tu at io n h e co nf ro nt ed .” Sa uc ie r v. K

at z , 53 3 U.S. 1 94 , 20 2, 1 21 S. Ct. 2 15 2, 21 56 (20 01 ). Whi tt ie r as se rts Brunaan d Vi sn ers en te redhe r an d h er s on ’s res id en ce witho utfir stkn oc ki ng an d a nn ou nc in g t he ir p res en ce i n v io la ti on of the Fo urth Am en dm en t. The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s “ [t]he rig htof t he pe op le to be se cu re i n t he ir p ers on s, h ou se s, p ap ers , andeffe ct s, ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. In W il so n v . Arka ns as , 51 4 U.S. 9 27 , 92 9, 11 5 S . Ct. 1 91 4, 1 91 5 (1 99 5) , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t he Fo urth Am en dm en t reas on ab le ne ss in qu iry inc or po rat edth e co m

m on law re qu ire m en t tha t o ffi cers , whe n e xe cu ti ng a se arch warran t, m us t kno ckon a do oran d ann ou nc e th ei r id en ti ty befo re at te m

pt in g afor ci bl e en try int o aho m e. The C ou rt, h owe ve r, reco gn iz ed“ [t]he Fo urth Am en dm en t’s fl ex ib le requi rem en t o f rea so nabl en es s sh ou ldno t b e rea d t o m an da te a ri gi d ru le of a nn ou nc em en t tha t i gn or es co un te rv ai li ng law en fo rcem en t i nt eres ts ,” id. at 9 34 , 11 5 S . Ct. at19 18 , andno te d th e kno ck -an d- an no un ce re qu ire m en t co ul d g iv e way “un de r ci rcu m st an ces pr es en ti ng a th reatof p hysic al vi ol en ce,” o r “ whe re p ol ic e o ffi cers ha ve reas on to be li ev e th atev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y be de st ro y edif a dv an ce n ot ic e were g iv en ,” id. at93 6, 1 15 S. Ct. at19 19 .

7Fo ll owi ng W il so n , so m e co urts crea te d abl an ke t ex cep ti onto th e kno ck an d- an no un ce re qu ire m en t i n fe lo ny dru g c as es , bas edinpa rt o n t he ge ne ral iz at io n tha t the se cas es oft enin vo lv e a thr eatof v io le nc e an d d es tru ct io n o f drug s. Se e Ric ha rd

s v. Wisc on si n , 52 0 U.S. 3 85 , 39 2, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 41 6, 1 42 0 (1 99 7) . In Rich ar ds v. W is co ns in , ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt re jecte d s uc h a cat eg or ic al ex cep ti on an d i ns te adad op te d acas e-b y -cas e ap pr oa ch forde te rm in in g if l aw en fo rcem en t ac te d re as on ab ly in en te rin g ares id en ce wi th ou t fi rs t kno ck in g an d a nn ou nc in g: “ Inord er t o ju st ify a ‘ no -kno ck ’ en try, the po li ce m us t h av e a reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t kno ck in g a ndan no un ci ng th ei r pr es en ce, u nd er the pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces , wou ldbe da ng ero us or f ut il e, orth atitwou ldin hi bi t the effe ct iv e in ve st ig at io n o f th e cri m e b y , forex am pl e, al lo win g t he de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce.” Id. at 3 94 , 11 7 S . Ct. at14 21 . The Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d, h owe ve r,

“ [t]hi s s ho win g i s n othi gh .” Id. , 11 7 S . Ct. at14 22 . Bo th W il so n an d Rich ards were cr im in al cas es in whi ch th e d efen da nt s h ad m ov edto supp res s ev id en ce b as edup on all eg edFo urth Am en dm en t v io la ti on s. In th e co nt ex t o f qu al ifi edimm un it y , th is Co urt h as st at ed“ th e is su e is no t wh ethe r reas on ab le su sp ic io n e xi st edin fact , bu t wh ethe r th e o ffi cer h ad‘ arg uabl e’ reas on ab le su sp ic io n.” Ja cks on v. Sa ul s , 20 6 F .3d11 56 , 11 66 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Inot he r wor ds , we ana lyze whet he r a rea so nabl e o ffi cer c ou ldha ve ha d re as on ab le 8su sp ic io n t ha t ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , su ch as ath reatof v io le nc e an d/ or

de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce, ex is te d t o ju st ify the no -kno cken try. Se e Bre nt v. Ash le y , 24 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (d is cu ss in g t he arg uabl e rea so nabl e su sp ic io n s ta nd ardwithi n t he co nt ex t o f st rip sea rch es ). In u nd ert ak in g t he arg uabl e rea so nabl e su sp ic io n i nqui ry , th is Co urt m us t ex am in e th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces to de te rm in e whe th er an off ic er h ada “pa rti cu la riz edan d o bjec ti ve ” ba si s t o s up po rt h is su sp ic io n. Id. at13 04 . Whe th er the off ic er’s s us pi ci on en ds up be in g m is ta ke n i s i m

m at eri al so lo ng as i t was reas on ab le . Id. at 1 30 3. W it hi n t he co nt ex t o f warra nt le ss sea rch es , we hav e h el d t he m ere p res en ce of co nt rab an d, wi th ou t m or e, do es no t g iv e ri se to ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces . Uni te d St at es v. To bi n, 92 3 F .2d15 06 , 15 10 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) . At the same tim e, ho wev er, we ha ve als o re pe at ed ly not edth e d an ge ro us , andoft envi ol en t, co m bi na ti on of drug s an d fi rearm s, se e, e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. Hr oma da , 49 F.3d68 5, 6 89 (11 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ Gun s an d v io le nc e g o h an d- in -h an d wi th il le ga l dru g o pe rat io ns .”), an d s ev eral of o ursi st er ci rcu it s h av e co nc lu de d thi s co m bi na ti on m ay

gi ve ris e to reas on ab le su sp ic io n o f da ng er an d ju st ify a no -kno cken try, se e Uni te d Sta tes v. St even s , 43 9 F .3d98 3, 9 88 –8 9 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ) (aff irming a m ag is tra te jud ge ’s co nc lu si on th ata no -kno cksea rch was ju st ifi edba se d upo n the pre se nc e o f drug s an d asawe d- of

f sh ot gu n i n aco m

m on areaof t he ho us e); Uni te d Sta tes v. 9W

as hi ng to n , 34 0 F .3d22 2, 2 27 (5t h C ir. 2 00 3) (st at in g i nf orm at io n t ha t “ th e su sp ectwas s el li ng dru gs an d was typic al ly arm ed . . . . ex ceed s t he lev el th is ci rcu itha s fo un d s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh a reas on ab le su sp ic io n o f da ng er”) . Inth is cas e, we co nc lu de Bru naan d Vi sn ers are en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y be cau se a reas on ab le off ic er co ul d h av e h adreas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t kn oc ki ng an d a nn ou nc in g h is pre se nc e wou ldha ve be enda ng ero us un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces faci ng th e SWAT tea m . Tho se cir cu m st an ces in cl ud edservi ng a 2 se arch warran t o n t he ho m e o f a s us pe ct eddru g d eal er (Di ot ai ut o) , who ha d re ady acce ss to fir earm s an d o ccupi edth e p rem is es when th e SWATtea m arri ve d t o se rv e th e warra nt . Ind eed , bas edup on th e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le to th e SWAT te am , Dio ta iu to (1) rece iv edan d s ol d n arco ti cs , in cl ud in g c oc ai ne an d m ari juan a, athi s re si de nc e; (2) ha d acri m in al hi st ory ; (3 ) carrie d aco nc eal edsemi-au to m at ic ha nd gu n o n h is pe rs on ; an d (4 ) po ss es se d ash ot gu n t ha t h e k ep t i n h is be dr oo m . Thi s i nf orm at io n, wh ic h was co nt ai ne d i n t he SWAT team ’s op erat io na l p la n a nd rece iv edan d re vi ewedby the m em be rs of the tea m , pro vi de d a“pa rti cu la riz edan d

We are awa

re that the office rs maintain a knoc k and announc ement took place and that 2 fourtee n office rs have testified to that eff ect. Whether

a knock a

nd announce ment actua lly occur red, how ever , is irreleva

nt to our analy sis of arguable r easona ble suspicion, and thus the outcome in this case is the sa me under both the office rs’ a

nd Whit tier’s ve rsions of the fa cts. 10ob

jecti ve ” b as is fora reas on ab le off ic er t o s us pe ctth e si tu at io n h ada po te nt ia l fo r vi ol en ce an d t o b el ie ve ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d t o ju st ify a no -kno cken try. 3 The factth atth e o pe rat io na l p la n c al le d fo r a kno ckan d a nn ou nc e p rio r to en try do es no t al te r ou r an al y si s. Ev enass um in g t he op erat io na l p la n, wh ic h was pr ep aredpri or

to th e se rv ic e o f th e warra nt , sp eak s fo r wha t Brun a an d Vi sn ers actua ll y be li ev edas t he y

st oo d “ in th e st ack ” o ut si de th e Whit ti er/ Dio ta iu to res id en ce, the off

ic ers ’ su bj ect iv e be li efs reg ard in g t he cir cu m st an ces are irr el ev an t t o t he qu al ifi edimm un it y in qu iry. Se e Har lo w v. Fit zg er ald , 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 8 17 –1 8, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 72 7, 2 73 7– 38 (19 82 ) (d is card in g t he subjec ti ve co m po ne ntof t he qu al ifi edim m un it y in qu iry andad op ti ng th e “ ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss ” st an da rd ); Ja cks on , 20 6 F .3dat 1 16 5 (“ [T]he st an da rdfor de te rm in in g i f anoff

ic er v io la te d c le arl y

est ab li sh edlaw i s an ob

jecti ve on e an d do es no t i nc lu de in qu iry int o t he off ic er’s s ub jecti ve in te ntor b el ie fs .”). Mo reo ve r, we ha ve he ldanoff ic er i s en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y ev enwhenhe Our inquiry

is whether B runa a

nd Visners ha d arguable r easona ble suspicion that 3 exigent cir cumstance s exi sted to justify a no-knoc k entry , and thus we spe cifica lly decline to addre ss whether

exigent cir cumstance s did indeed exist under the fac ts of this case. In a footnote of its order de nying the SW AT team leader ’s motion for summary judgme nt as to the knock-andannounce claim, the district cour t concluded no e x ige nt circumstanc es existed. On appea l, we do not disturb this deter

mination because the per

tinent inquiry

is not whether e x ige nt circumstanc es actuallyexis ted, but whether a re asonable office r, ac ting unde r the samecirc umstances a nd possessing the same knowle dg e as B runa a nd Visners, could have

believe d they did. See Jack son , 206 F.3d at 1165–66. 11reas on ab ly, bu t m is ta ke nl y , bel ie ve s re as on ab le su sp ic io n i s p res en t, se e Bre nt ,

24 7 F .3dat 1 30 3; itm ak es li tt le sen se to no t af fo rdth e sa m e p ro te ct io n t o a n of fic er wh o, s en si ti ve to th e ri gh ts cit iz en s en joy un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on , in it ia ll y , bu t m is ta ke nl y , bel ie ve s t he si tu at io n i nv ol ve s a c on st itut io na l p ro te ct io n, b utlat er le arn s i t d oe s n ot . IV. CONCLUSION Insu m , we con cl ud e Bru naan d Vi sn ers are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y on Whi tt ie r’s kn oc k- an d- an no un ce cl ai m . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er d en y in g t he ir m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to th is cla im . 4 REVERSED.

Be cause we c onclude B runa a nd Visners a

re e ntitled to sum mary

judgme nt on the basis 4 of qualified immunity , we ne ed not addr ess the sec ond issue they raise on a

ppeal—that is, whether they are entitled to summary

judgme nt on the ground that no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi sted as to whethe r a knoc k and announc e ac tually occur red. We note, how ever , we likely would not have jurisdiction to consider this issue on an interlocutory appea l, as it is not a part of, or inextricably

intertwined with, the c ore qua lified immunity issue. See B ehrens v . Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312–13, 116 S. C t. 834, 842 (1996); Koch v. Rugg , 221 F.3d 1283, 1295–96 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 12