FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 01 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 25 79 -RWS ANNIE W ILLIAMS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ADRIENNE TAY LOR-LEE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff Ann ie W il li am s (“ W il li am s” ) ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o fsu m

m ary jud gm en t o n the ba si s o f qu al ifi edimm un it y in fav orof De fen da nt Adr ie nn e Tay lo r-Lee ( “ Tay lo r-Lee” ) on he r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im . On ap pe al , W il li am s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby: (1) co nc lu di ng th atarg uabl e pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d fo r he r arre stform ak in g t erro ris ti c th reat s, i n v io la ti on of O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 1- 37 ; an d (2 ) fai li ng to de te rm in e whe th er ar gu ab le pro babl e cau se ex is te d fo r he r arre stfor ag gr av at edass au lt , in vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 16 -5 - 21 . For t he reas on s s etfor th be lo w, we affi rm . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm

un it y de no vo . Cas e v . Esl in ge r, 55 5 F .3d13 17 , 13 24 -2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if the ev id en ce es tabl is he s “ ‘no g en ui ne is su e as to an y

m at eri al factan d t ha t t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.’” McCo rm ic k v . Cit y of F ort Lau de rd al e, 33 3 F .3d12 34 , 12 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (qu ot in g F ed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)) . “ The ev id en ce, an d a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es , m

us t b e v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov an t.” Id . W il li am s fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin co nc lu di ng th at arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is te d fo r he r arre stform ak in g t erro ris ti c th reat s.

“ Pro babl e cau se to arre stex is ts when law en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s h av e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces withi n t he ir kno wled ge su ffi ci en t t o warran t a r eas on ab le be li ef t ha t th e su sp ectha d c omm it te d o r was co m m it ti ng a cri m e.” Cas e, 55 5 F .3dat 1 32 7 2(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Thi s s tand ardis m etwhen th e fac ts an d

ci rcu m st an ces withi n t he off ic er’s kno wled ge , of wh ic h h e o r sh e h as reas on ab ly tru st worth y

in fo rm at io n, wo ul d c au se a prud en t p ers on to be li ev e, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces sh own , th atth e su sp ectha s co m m it te d, i s co m

m it ti ng , or i s ab ou t t o co m m itanoff en se .” Lee v . Ferra ro , 28 4 F .3d11 88 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Prob ab le cau se do es no t re qu ire th e sa m e

“ st an da rdof c on cl us iv en es s an d p ro babi li ty as th e fac ts ne ces sa ry to supp ort a co nv ic ti on .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Even in th e ab se nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se , ho wev er, “ an off ic er i s s ti ll en ti tl edto qu al ifi edim m un it y if arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is te d.” Cas e, 55 5 F .3dat 1 32 7. “ Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts wher e rea so nabl e o ffi cers in th e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d p os se ss in g th e sa m e kno wled ge as the Defen da ntco ul d h av e b el ie ve d t ha t p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t.” Lee , 28 4 F .3dat 1 19 5 (b rack et s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . “ Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se do es no t re qu ire anarre st in g o ffi cer t o p ro ve ev ery el em en t o f a cri m e o r to ob ta in a co nf es si onbe fo re m ak in g a n a rres t, wh ic h wou ldne ga te th e co nc ep t o f pr ob ab le cau se an d t ran sf orm arre st in g o ffi cers in to pr os ecu to rs .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Tay lo r-Lee h adarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atW il li am s was gu il ty of m ak in g aterro ris ti c th reat . “ A per so n c omm it s t he off en se of aterro ris ti c th reat 3whe n h e o r sh e th reat en s t o c omm itan y cri m e o f vi ol en ce . . . with th e p ur po se of te rro riz in g a no th er . . . or i n re ck le ss di sr eg ardof t he ris k o f cau si ng su ch terro r . . . .” O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 11 -3 7. Atth e ti m e sh e so ug htth e warra ntforW il li am s’ arres t, Tay lo r-Lee h adbe en gi ve n a n a cco un t o f th e in ci de ntby the vi ct im , Jer em y Fi nn ey , whi chin cl ud edde ta il s o f th e al le ge d t hr eat en in g s ta te m en ts an d a ct io ns of W il li am s an d h er s on at t he sce ne of t he in ci de nt . Fin ne y als o g av e Tay lo r-Lee a de sc rip ti on of Wil li am s an d h er s on . Tay lo r-Lee t he n t rav el edto th e lo cat io n whe re Fi nn ey

in di cat edth atW il li am s co ul d b e fo un d a ndfou nda wom an m at ch in g t he de sc rip ti ongi ve n b y Fin ne y . W il li am s ar gu es th atTay lo r-Lee’s ch arac te riz at io n o f W il li am s’ st at em en t – th athe r so n wo ul d n otsh oo t Fi nn ey if h e rel eas edth e car

– i s d iff eren t tha n t he st at em en t co nt ai ne d i n t he in ci de ntrep ort –th at“ he r so n was n’t g oi ng to sh oo t [Fi nn ey ], he jus t wan t[s ] th e car ba ck .” The s ta te m en t i n t he in ci de ntrep ort i s am bi gu ou s. Bu t u nd er the cir cu m st an ces , on e rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n o f th e st at em en t i n t he in ci de ntrep ort i s t he on e th atTay lo r-Lee a do pt ed– tha t Will ia m s’ so n was no t g oi ng to sh oo t Fi nn ey as l on g a s h e rel eas edth e car . Becau se th e st at em en t ca n b e p laus ib ly int erp ret edas ath reatto co m m ita cri m e o f vi ol en ce, Tay lo r-Lee h adarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atW il li am s was gu il ty of m ak in g aterro ris ti c th reat . 4W il li am s al so arg ue s t ha t t he re was a la ckof a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se

be cau se Tay lo r-Lee h adno co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce o f th e th reat . O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 11 -3 7 p ro vi de s tha t: “No p ers on sh al l b e co nv ic te d u nd er t hi s s ub se ct io n o n t he un co rro bo rat edtes ti m on y of t he pa rty to wh om

th e th reatis co m

m un ic at ed .” That , ho wev er, i s an ev id en ti ary requi rem en t. Itdo es no t ch an ge th e el em en ts of t he of fen se . Tay lo r-Lee h adarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atW il li am s’ co nduc t s at is fie d t he ele m en ts of avi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 1- 37 . Even as su m in g t he re was a la ckof c orro bo rat iv e ev id en ce atth e ti m e, th atwou ldno t ne ga te th e arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se th atex is te d. 1 Fi na ll y , W il li am s co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o de te rm in e whe th er ar gu ab le pro babl e cau se ex is te d fo r he r arre stforag gr av at ed as saul t, i n v io la ti onof O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 5- 21 . W e d is ag ree. “ ‘W he n a n o ffi cer m ak es anarre st , whi ch is pro pe rly supp orte d b y pro babl e cau se to arre stfora cert ai n o ffen se , nei th er h is subjec ti ve rel ia nc e o n an o ffen se forwhi ch no pro babl e cau se ex is ts no r hi s v erb al an no un cem en t o f th e wro ng off en se vi ti at es th e arre st .’ ” Lee, 2 84 F.3d11 88 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v .

We also note that the cor

roborative evidenc e re quirement is not a string ent one. 1 See Ge ter v. State, 300 Ga . App. 396, 398, 685 S.E.2d 342, 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) ( “Slight circ umstances may

provide suff

icient cor robora ting e vidence . The qua

ntum of corr oboration need not in itself be suf

ficient e vidence , but need only be that amount of inde pendent e vidence which tends to prove that the incident occ urre d as alleg ed.”) . 5Sau nd ers , 47 6 F .2d5, 7 (5t h C ir. 1 97 3) ) (al te rat io n o m it te d) . Becau se arg uabl e

pr ob ab le cau se supp orte d Wil li am s’ arres t fo r a v io la ti on of O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 11 -3 7, itis imm at eri al whet he r arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se als o e xi st edforhe r arre stfora vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 16 -5 -2 1. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s af firm ed . AFFIR MED. 2

Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is DENI ED. 2 6