FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 13 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 00 73 -MS S-KRS BRIDGET GORDON, MITCHELL GORDON, a.k .a. Mi tc h Go rd on , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , vers us KEVIN BEARY, inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Sh eri ff o f Oran ge Co un ty, Fl or id a, RONALD W ILCOX, inhi s i nd iv idua l capa ci ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , CITY OF OCOEE, a m

un ic ip al co rp or at io n, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1)Befo re EDMONDSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andHOPKINS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s wh ethe r a d ep uty sh eri ff, Ro na ldW il co x, i s en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y ag ai ns t Br id ge t Go rd on ’s com pl ai ntth atth e d ep uty

vi ol at ed th e Fo urthan d F ou rte en thAm en dm en ts when he arre st edhe r wit ho utpro babl e cau se an d s ei zedit em s fr om he r ph arm acy thatwere o ut si de th e sc op e o f a s earc h warra nt . Gord on als o s ue d t he Sh eri ff i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty. The d is tri ctco urt en te reda su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Depu ty W il co x a ndth e Sh eri ff. W e affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND In20 03 , Bri dg etGord onown edan d o pe rat eda ph arm acy in Oran ge Co un ty, Fl or id a. Gord on was the on ly lice ns edph arm aci stat t he ph arm acy, an d sh e em pl oyed Trac y

Ro m an o a ndBet ty H orn a s cl erk s an d Kat hy Brown as a m an ag er. Inearl y 20 03 , a joi ntop erat io n o f pe ace o ffi cers fro m th e ci ti es of Oc oe e an d Win te r Gard en , Flo rid a, an d t he Sh eri ff’s Offi ce o f Oran ge Co un ty in ve st ig at edth e p ha rm acy. Ken Taylo r, Kev inMarc um , Mic ha el Henry , Don na

Honora ble Virg inia Emerson Hopkins, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Alaba

ma, sitting by

designation. 2Olp hi e, Bryan Pac e, an d B ria n S at te rle e were m em be rs of t hi s t as k fo rce. Ro na ld W il co x, a d ep ut y

inth e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, al so pa rti ci pa te d i n t he in ve st ig at io n due to hi s ex te ns iv e ex pe rie nc e wit h p ha rm aceu ti cal cri m es . The tas k fo rce e nl is te d s ev eral co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts to pu rch as e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es fro m Gord on ’s ph arm acy w it ho uta pr es cri pt io n. In Ju ne 20 03 , on e in fo rm an t, Greg Gurl ey , pu rch as edten OxyCon ti n p il ls fro m Ro m an o witho uta pr es cri pt io n. Ox y Co nt in co nt ai ns Oxycod on e as anact iv e in gr ed ie nt , an d Ox y co do ne is a Sch edul e II co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e und er Fl or id a la w, Fla. St at . § 8 93 .03 (2 )(a) 1.o . In Oct ob er 2 00 3, an ot he r in fo rm an t, J on atha n Tan ne r, at te m pt edto pu rch as e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es fro m th e p ha rm acy w it ho uta pr es cri pt io n. Tan ne r in it ia ll y st at edina swo rnaffi da vi t tha t h e h adpu rch as ed ab ou t 6 0 h y dr oc od on e p il ls , a Sch edul e II co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e und er Fl or id a la w, id . § 8 93 .03 (2 )(a) 1.j., di rect ly from Gord on witho uta pr es cri pt io n, b utTann er was arre st edfor

fak in g adru g b uy in a n u nr el at edin ve st ig at io n two d ay s l at er. Upo n hi s arres t, Tan ne r co nf

es se d t o Ag en ts Henry

an d Ol ph ie th athe ha d a ls o fa ke d h is pu rp orte d p ur ch as e fro m

Gord on . InJan uary

20 04 , Mari lyn Meyer pu rch as ed83 gra m s o f co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc es fro m

Horn witho uta pr es cri pt io n. Th e ta skfor ce arres te d M ey er, an d Dep uty W il co x que st io ne d h er. Meyer st at edth atsh e h adpro cu redco nt ro ll ed 3subs ta nc es witho uta pr es cri pt io n fr om th e te ch ni ci an s atGord on ’s ph arm acy m an y ti m es . Mey er al so st at edth atsh e th ou gh t tha t the tec hn ic ia ns ob ta in ed pe rm is si on fro m

Gord on to di sp en se th e co ntro ll edsubs ta nc es witho uta pr es cri pt io n, b utsh e d idno t kno w. Mey er ag reedto workas aco nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, an d s he lat er p ur ch as ed10 0 h y dr oc od on e p il ls fro m Ro m an o wi th ou t a pr es cri pt io n. On J anua ry

13 , 20 04 , Depu ty W il co x p rep aredanarre stwarran t fo r Gor do n fo r th e cri m e o f tr affi ck in g i n h y dr oc od on e. To es tabl is h p ro babl e cau se , W il co x rel ie d o n Tan ne r’s an d M ey er’s p ur ch as es an d M ey er’s s ta te m en t. Wilco x d idno t m en ti on Tann er’s rec an ta ti on inth e warra nt . He exp la in edth at , whenhe ex ecu te d th e warra nt , he kne w abo utTann er’s arr es t fo r fak in g aco nt ro ll edbu y inan un rel at edin ve st ig at io n, b utdi d n otkn ow tha t Tan ne r ha d re can te d h is swo rn st at em en t ab ou t p ur ch as in g p il ls di rect ly from Gord on . W il co x a ls o p rep areda se arch warran t fo r Gor do n’s p ha rm acy to al lo w age nt s t o s ei ze, am on g o th er th in gs , “ co nt ro ll edsubs tanc es ,” “pr es cri pt io ns of c on tro ll edsubs ta nc es ,” “ reco rd s pe rta in in g t o t he il le ga l s al e an d d is tri bu ti on of c on tro ll edsubs tanc es ,” an d

“pa rap he rn al iaus edinweig hi ng , pac ka gi ng an d c on ceal m en t o f co ntro ll ed subs ta nc es .” A judg e ap pr ov edan d s ig ne d b ot h warran ts .

4Dep ut y W il co x e xe cu te d t he warran ts on Janua ry 14 , 20 04 . He ent ered Gor do n’s p ha rm acy w ith s ev eral off ic ers , pl acedGord on an d R om an o i n c us to dy, an d s earc he d t he ph arm acy. The Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Heal th co nduc te d a n adm in is tra ti ve in sp ect io n o f th e p ha rm acy sim ul ta ne ou sl y , andth e in sp ect io n rev eal ednu m ero us de fic ie nc ie s an d v io la ti on s o f Fl or id a la w, in cl ud in g m is labe le d m ed ic at io ns , exp ire d m ed ic at io ns inth e act iv e st oc k o f th e p res cri pt io n de pa rtment, andun cl ean an d uns an it ary pr em is es . Dur in g t he sea rch , off

ic ers sei zedit em s b ey on d t he sco pe of t he sea rch warra nt . Gord on co nt en ds th atth es e it em s i nc lu de d u no pe ne d c ab in et s, ca se s o f ex pi redm ed ic in e, m is cel la ne ou s dru gs , no n- co nt ro ll edpre sc rip ti on s, t am po ns , pe ni ci ll in , vi ta m in s, s al in e, pi m pl e cre am , per so na l p ho to gr ap hs , her ch il dr en ’s bi rth cert ifi cat es an d re po rt c ard s, an d a m ni oc en te si s. Dep ut y

W il co x a nd Serg ean t M arcu m

lat er t es ti fie d t ha t the y

co ul d n otrem em

be r whe th er the y

ha d se iz edso m e o f th es e it em s, b utth ey di d n otde ny Gord on ’s con te nt io ns . W il co x co m pl et eda reco rdth atco rro bo rat es th athe an d t he othe r of fic ers sei zeden ti re cab in et s, n on -co nt ro ll edscr ip ts an d p il ls , andm is cel la ne ou s d oc um en ts an d pape rwo rk . In 2 00 9, the Sh eri ff’s Offi ce s ti ll ha d i n i ts po ss es si onso m e o f th e it em s s ei zedon Jan ua ry

14 , 20 04 , in cl ud in g d ru gs , con ta in ers , pap erwo rk , and

“ th ou sa nd s o f fo rg edpre sc rip ti on s.” 5Dep ut y W il co x e xp la in edth atth e se iz ur es were n eces sary du e to th e p oo r co nd it io ns of t he ph arm acy: I an d th e Dep art m en t of Heal th an d othe r ag en ts . . . wen t t h r o u g h the cab in et s an d fo un d in si de th e cab in et s ex pi red m ed ic at io ns co m m in gl ed with m ed ic at io ns th at were n o t e x pi red . W e fo un d ci ga rette s, rat de feca ti o n , r o d e n t de feca ti on . W e fo un d de ad ro ach es . W e fo un d b ot tl es with pi nk , pu rp le , gr een , bl ack , whi te pi ll s. W e fo un d no or ga ni zat io n. I ha d ex pe rts fro m th e Dep art m en t of Heal th di rect m e to se iz e al l of th e m ed ic at io ns th at were on th e pr em is es , an d I was pr ep ared to do s o w h e th er th ey ha d as ke d m e to [o r] no t fo r publ ic sa fety . . . . I ’v e s een res tro om [s ], publ ic res tro om s cl ean er th an th at ph arm acy. Drawers were o pe ne d up, an d we f ou ndratha irs . Serg ean t M arcu m

ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ an yth in g t ha t p ert ai ne d t o p il ls or s cri pt s was tak en ,” de sp it e whe th er o r no t i t was a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, “be cau se of t he m es s t ha t was th ere.” He add edth atth e se iz edit em s wer e “ take n t o o urpro pe rty se ct io n wh ere we c ou ldgo th ro ug h i t al l i ns te adof b ei ng inth atna sty ph arm acy to go th ro ug h t he pi ll s.” On J ul y 6, 2 00 4, Go rd on was c ha rg edwith t raff ic ki ng inhydro co do ne , Fla . St at . § 8 93 .13 5( 1) (c)1 .c. The St at e la te r de cl in edto pro se cu te , anddi sm is se d t he ch arg es . On Oct ob er 2 8, 2 00 4, Go rd on ex ecu te d an a ss ig nm en t o f as se ts to Card in al Heal th 10 3, In c. Card in al Heal th fil edinth e st at e co urt a No ti ce o f In te res t i n t he pro pe rty sei zedfro m Gord on ’s ph arm acy “pr ed ic at edup on an ab so lu te ass ig nm en t.”

6On M ay 31 , 20 05 , a jud ge ord eredth e Sh eri ff t o re le as e al l p ro pe rty sei zed on Jan uary

14 , 20 04 , th atrel at edto Gord on ’s cri m in al ch arg es ex cep t fo r $6 0,8 94 .68 incas h, wh ic h re m ai ne d s ub ject t o afor fei ture ac ti on . The o rd er ackno wled ge d t ha t “ Card in al Heal th ha s a v al idass ig nm en t b y [Gor do n] inth is cau se ass ig ni ng to itall pro pe rty sei zedby [the ] Oran ge Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce.” Gor do n l at er ac kn owl ed ge d i n aset tl em en t ag reem en t wi th Card in al Heal thth at sh e h ad“ as si gn edto Card in al [Heal th ] cert ai n o f [h er] ass et s, i nc lu di ng [he r] rig ht s, t it le s an d i nt eres ts inan d t o p ro pe rty sei zedby the Sh eri ff.” Gor do n a ndhe r hu sb an d, M it ch el l, fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t Dep ut y W il co x, the Sh eri ff i n h is off ic ia l capa ci ty, an d o th ers inst at e co urt o n Au gu st3, 20 07 . W il co x a ndth e Sh eri ff rem ov edth e act io n t o t he di st ric t co urt, an d the pa rti es st ip ul at edto th e d is m is sa l o f al l o th er d efen da nt s. In a se co ndam en de d co m pl ai nt , th e Gor do ns ass ert edfed eral an d s ta te cla im s ag ai ns t Wilc ox an d t he Sh eri ff, in cl ud in g v io la ti on s o f th e Fo urth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, fa ls e arr es t, co nv ers io n, an d l os s o f co ns orti um . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d W il co x a ndth e Sh eri ff a s umm ary jud gm en t. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is po si ti onof asu m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y , res ol vi ng all is su es of m at eri al factinfav or

7of

Pla in ti ffs an d t he n a ns weri ng th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er Defe nd an ts are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y un de r th atve rs io n o f th e fac ts .” W es t v . Till m an , 49 6 F .3d13 21 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON W e d iv id e o urdi sc us si on inth ree p art s. Fi rs t, we ad dr es s B rid ge t Go rd on ’s fed eral cla im s ag ai ns t Dep ut y W il co x. Se co nd , we add res s Go rd on ’s fed eral cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Sh eri ff. Thi rd , we add res s t he Gord on s’ st at e cl ai m s. A. Depu tyW

ilcox Enj oys Qu al if

ie d Immu ni tyAga in st

Gordo n’ s Fed er al Cla ims . Gor do n a rg ue s t ha t Dep ut y W il co x v io la te d h er cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral rig ht s wh enhe arre st edhe r wit ho utpro babl e cau se , andsei zedit em s o ut si de th e sc op e o f th e se arch warran t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d Wil co x s umm ary jud gm en t ba se d o n qua li fie d i m

m un it y .

“ ‘Q ua li fie d i m

m un it y sh ie ld s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s fr om li ab il it y forciv il da m ag es forto rts co m

m it te d wh il e p erfo rm in g d is cret io na ry du ti es un le ss th ei r co nduc t v io la te s a c le arl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh t.’” Cren sh aw v. Li st er, 5 56 F.3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Hadl ey v. Gu ti erre z, 52 6 F.3 d 1 32 4, 1 32 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ). If anoff ic ia l es tabl is he s t ha t h e was act in g withi n h is di sc ret io nary

au th or ity , th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e p la in ti ff t o p ro ve th at th e o ffi ci al ’s con du ctvi ol at eda fed eral rig htan d t ha t the rig htwas c le arl y 8es tabl is he d. To wns en d v . Jef fers on Cn ty., 60 1 F .3d11 52 , 11 58 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Bec au se itis un di sp ut edth atDepu ty W il co x was act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y , th e b ur de n s hi fte d t o Go rd on to pre se ntev id en ce tha t W il co x v io la te d h er cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral rig ht s. Be cau se Gord on fai le d t o sa ti sf y th atbu rd en , W il co x e njo y s qua li fie d i m m un it y ag ai ns t h er fe de ral cla im s. 1. Dep ut y

W il co x Di d No t Vi ol at e a Fed eral Rig htof Go rd on ’s Whe n He Arres te d HerBecaus e Pro babl e Cau se Supp orte d the Arres t. Gor do n a rg ue s t ha t Dep ut y W il co x l ack edpro babl e cau se forhe r arre st . The Fo urth Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n fo rb id s “ un reas on ab le se arch es an d s ei zu res .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. Anarre stis a se iz ur e o f th e pe rs on , Cal ifo rn iav. Ho da ri D., 4 99 U.S. 62 1, 6 24 , 11 1 S . Ct. 1 54 7, 1 54 9– 50 (1 99 1) , andth e rea so nabl en es s o f anarres t i s “ de te rm in edby the pre se nc e o r ab se nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se forth e arr es t,” S ko p v . Cit y of At la nt a, Ga., 48 5 F .3d 11 30 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). An o ffi cer h as pro babl e cau se to arre stif t he fact s withi n h is kn owl ed ge or abo utwhi chhe ha d re as on ab ly trus two rth y in fo rm at io n wou ldall ow a p ru de ntm anto be li ev e rea so nabl y th ata su sp ectha d c omm it te d o r was co m m it ti ng anoff

en se . Hol m es v. Ku cynd a, 32 1 F .3d10 69 , 10 79 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). “ To re cei ve qu al ifi edim m un it y pro te ct io n, an off

ic er ‘nee d n otha ve actua l pr ob ab le cau se bu t o nl y

“ arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ,”’” whic h re qu ire s u s t o

9de te rm in e “ ‘whe th er an off ic er re as on ab ly cou ldha ve be li ev edth atpro babl e cau se ex is te d, i n l ig htof t he in fo rm at io n t he off ic er p os se ss ed .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g M on to ut e v. Ca rr, 1 14 F.3d18 1, 1 84 (11 thCir . 19 97 )). Dep ut y W il co x’s af

fid av itinsupp ort o f Gor do n’s arres t warran t es tabl is he d pr ob ab le cau se forhe r arre st . Evenif we c red itTann er’s i nc on si st en t t es ti m on y in fav orof Go rd on , W il co x’s ac cu rat e su m m ari es of M ey er’s p ur ch as e an d subs eque ntst at em en t i n t he affi da vi t wer e su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow a p ru de ntm anto be li ev e rea so nabl y

th atGord onha d c omm it te d o r was co m m it ti ng anoff

en se . See Hol m es , 32 1 F .3dat 1 07 9. Th e d es cri pt io n o f Tan ne r’s pu rp orte d b uy in t he affi da vi t was “ [u n]ne ces sa ry to th e fi nd in g o f pr ob ab le cau se ” b ecau se “ th e affi da vi t’s re m ai ni ng co nt en t [wa s] []suff ic ie ntto est ab li sh pro babl e cau se .” Fran ks v. Del aware , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 , 15 5– 56 , 98 S. Ct. 2 67 4, 2 67 6 (1 97 8) . W il co x di d n otvi ol at e Gor do n’s fe de ral rig ht s wh enhe arre st edhe r. 2. Dep ut y

W il co x Di d No t Vi ol at e a Fed eral Rig htof Go rd on ’s ThatW as Cle arl y Est ab li sh edWhe n He S ei zedIte m s Ou ts id e th e Sco pe of t he Sear chW arra nt . Gor do n a rg ue s t ha t Dep ut y W il co x s ei zedit em s o ut si de th e sc op e o f th e se arch warran t, i nc lu di ng no n- co nt ro ll edm ed ic at io ns an d p ers on al it em s, b utto ab ro ga te W il co x’s qua li fie d i m m un it y , Gord on ha d t o e st ab li shth at(1) W il co x’s se iz ur e v io la te d afed eral rig ht(2) th atwas c le arl y est ab li sh ed , Cas e v . Esl in ge r,

1055 5 F .3d13 17 , 13 25 –2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . W e are “pe rm it te d t o e xe rci se [ou r]

so un d d is cret io n i n d eci di ng whi chof t he two pro ng s o f th e qua li fie d i m m un it y an al y si s s ho ul d b e ad dr es se d fi rs t i n l ig htof t he cir cu m st an ces inth e p art ic ul ar cas e atha nd .” Pear so n v . Cal la ha n, 5 55 U.S. 22 3, 2 36 , 12 9 S . Ct. 8 08 , 81 8 (2 00 9) . Becau se Gord on ’s cla im is on e “ inwhi chitis pl ai n t ha t a c on st itut io na l rig ht[was ] no t cl earl y

est ab li sh ed ,” id . at 2 37 , 12 9 S . Ct. at81 8, o uran al y si s be gi ns an d e nd s wi th th e se co ndele m en t o f th e qua li fie d i m m un it y in qu iry. See i d. at24 3– 44 , 12 9 S . Ct. at82 2 (“ An o ffi cer c on du ct in g asea rch is en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y wher e cl earl y

est ab li sh edlaw d oe s n otsh ow tha t the sea rch vi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t.”) . The in qu iry whethe r a fed eral rig htis cle arl y est ab li sh ed“ ‘m

us t b e un de rta ke n i n l ig htof t he sp eci fic co nt ex t o f th e cas e, no t as a br oa d g en eral pr op os it io n.’” Co ffi n v . Bran dau, 6 42 F.3d99 9, 1 01 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (enba nc ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) (qu ot in g B ro ss eauv. Hau ge n, 5 43 U.S. 19 4, 19 8, 1 25 S. Ct. 5 96 , 59 9 (2 00 4) ). “ Exa ctfactua l i de nt it y with apre vi ou sl y de ci de d c as e is no t re qu ire d, b utth e unl awfu ln es s o f th e co nduc t m us t b e ap pa ren t fro m pre -ex is ti ng law.” Id . “ ‘T he cri ti cal in qu iry is wh ethe r th e la w pro vi de d [t he of fic er] with“ fai r warn in g” th at[hi s] con du ctvi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t.’” Id . (qu ot in g M cCl is h v . Nug en t, 4 83 F.3d12 31 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ti ng 11Hop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 41 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 6 (2 00 2) )). W e m us t

“ lo ok [] onl y

to bi nd in g p rece de nt—ca se s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, an d t he hi gh es t co urt o f th e st at e und er wh ic h t he cla im aro se —[t o] de te rm in e whe th er the rig htinqu es ti on was c le arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th e v io la ti on .” Id .

“ Whe re[] . . . ‘ anoff

ic er wh o i s ex ecu ti ng a va li d s earc h fo r on e it em sei zes a d iff eren t i te m ,’ [th e Supr em e] Cou rt r ig ht ly ‘ ha s b een sen si ti ve to th e d an ge r . . . th atoff ic ers wil l en la rg e a s pe ci fic au th or iz at io n, fu rn is he d b y a warrantor a n ex ig en cy , in to th e equi va le ntof age ne ral warran t t o ru m m ag e an d s ei ze atwil l.’” Mi nn es ot a v . Dick ers on , 50 8 U.S. 3 66 , 37 8, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 13 0, 2 13 8 (1 99 3) (fo urth al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Texa s v . Bro wn, 4 60 U.S. 73 0, 7 48 , 10 3 S . Ct. 15 35 , 15 46 –4 7 (1 98 3) (pl ur al it y op in io n) (St ev en s, J ., con cu rri ng injud gm en t)) .

“ The requi rem en t tha t warran ts sh al l p art ic ul arl y de sc rib e th e th in gs to be sei zed m ak es ge ne ral sea rch es un de r th em im po ss ib le an d p rev en ts th e se iz ur e o f on e th in g u nd er a warran t d es cri bi ng an ot he r. As t o wh atis to be tak en , no th in g i s l eft to th e d is cret io n o f th e o ffi cer e xe cu ti ng th e warra nt .” Marr on v. Un it edSta te s, 27 5 U.S. 1 92 , 19 6, 4 8 S . Ct. 7 4, 7 6 (1 92 7) ; s ee al so Biv en s v . Six Unkno wn Fe d. Narco ti cs Agen ts , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 39 4 n .7, 9 1 S . Ct. 1 99 9, 2 00 4 n .7 (1 97 1) (“ [T]he

12Fo urthAm en dm en t co nf in es anoff

ic er ex ecu ti ng a se arch warran t s tri ct ly w it hi n th e b ou nd s s etby the warran t.”) . W e h av e rec og ni zedth at“ [t]he sei zu re o f it em s n otco ve redby a warran t do es no t au to m at ic al ly inv al id at e anot he rwis e v al idsea rch .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch an dl , 94 7 F .2d46 2, 4 65 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). “ The cru ci al in qu iry is a lways ‘whe th er the sea rch an d s ei zu res were re as on ab le un de r al l the cir cu m st an ces .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . W ua gn eu x, 6 83 F.2d13 43 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 82 )).

“ Su chth in gs as the sco pe of t he warran t, the be ha vi orof t he sea rch in g a ge nt s, the co nd it io ns un de r whi ch th e se arch was c on du ct ed , andth e n atur e o f th e ev id en ce be in g s ou gh t m

us t b e co ns id eredinde te rm in in g wh ethe r orno t the sea rch was reas on ab le .” Id .; s ee al so Mau gh on v. Bi bb Cn ty., 16 0 F .3d65 8, 6 60 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“Neg li ge ntor i nn oc en t m is ta ke s d o n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t.”) . W e h av e al so he lditreas on ab le forag en ts to rem ov e in ta ctfil es , bo ok s, an d fo ld ers when a pa rti cu la r do cu m en t wi th in th e fi le was i de nt ifi edas f al li ng withi n th e sc op e o f th e warra ntbe cau se “ [t]o r equi re o th erwi se ‘ wou ldsubs ta nt ia ll y in crea se th e ti m e requi redto co nduc t the sea rch , th ereb y ag gr av at in g t he in tru si ve ne ss of t he sea rch .’ ” Wua gn eu x, 6 83 F.2dat 1 35 3 (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Be us ch , 59 6 F .2d87 1, 8 76 –7 7 (9 th Cir . 19 79 )).

13InSch an dl , we hel d s earc he s re as on ab le , eve n t ho ug h s om e o f th e it em s

se iz edwere o ut si de th e sc op e o f th e warra nt s, b ecau se “ th e v as t m ajor it y of the do cu m en ts sei zedwere wi th in th e sc op e o f th e warra nt s[ ,] [an d] [i]t was in ev it ab le th atso m e irrel ev an t m at eri al s wo ul d b e se iz ed .” 94 7 F .2dat 4 65 . Sch an dl was ch arg edwith t ax ev as io n. Id . at 4 64 . Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e ag en ts sea rch ed Sch an dl ’s ho m e an d o ffi ce b as edon va li d s earc h warran ts forin fo rm at io n

“ rel at in g t o a ny fin an ci al tra ns act io ns ” o f Sch an dl . Id. at46 5. Sc ha nd l ch al le ng ed th e v al id it y

of t he sea rch es be cau se “ ag en ts readlo ve let te rs an d s ei zedpe rs on al do cu m en ts , so m e o f whi ch were n otrel ev an t t o t he [] pro ceed in gs ,” id ., in cl ud in g

“ do cu m en ts co nc ern in g h is so n’s rh in op la st y , a co m pu te r di sc co nt ai ni ng a bi bl e ho m e study

co ur se , a ro lo de x, a b ox of l et te rs fro m hi s m ot he r an d fa th er, t ax pr ot es te r m anua ls an d o th er p ers on al it em s,” i d. at46 4, b utwe up he ldth e se arch es an d s ei zu res as r eas on ab le , id . at 4 65 . Gor do n fa il s t o e xp la in ho w Depu ty W il co x v io la te d h er cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral rig ht . Our p rece de ntinSch an dl pro vi de d Wil co x wi th a st an da rdof reas on ab le ne ss th atacco un te d fo r th e “ co nd it io ns un de r whi chth e se archwas co nduc te d[ ] an d t he na tu re o f th e ev id en ce b ei ng so ug ht .” Id . W il co x e xp la in ed th athe an d t he ot he r ag en ts “ fo un d n o o rg an iz at io n” inth e p ha rm acy andsei zed no n- co nt ro ll edm ed ic at io ns aft er the y “ fo un d i ns id e th e cab in et s ex pi red 14m ed ic at io ns co m m in gl edwith m ed ic at io ns th atwere n otex pi red [,] . . . cig aret te s, ratde feca ti on , rod en t d efec at io n[ ,] . . . de adroa ch es [,] . . . [and ] bo tt le s wi th pi nk , pu rp le , gre en , bl ack , [an d] whi te pi ll s.” Se rg ean t M arcu m ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [t]he re were s o m an y

pi ll s i n d rawer s t ha t wer e jus t l ay in g t he re tha t [h e] did n’t kno w wha t [we re] go odpi ll s an d wh atwere b adpi ll s.” M arcu m ad de d tha t “ an yth in g th atpe rta in edto pi ll s o r sc rip ts was t ak en ,” de sp it e whe th er o r no t i t was a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e, “be cau se of t he m es s t ha t was th ere. . . . Everythi ng . . . was ta ke n t o [t he ] pr op erty

sec ti on wher e [the ag en ts ] co ul d g o t hr ou gh itall in st eadof be in g i n t ha t n as ty pha rm acy to g o t hr ou gh th e p il ls .” W il co x re co rd edth e co nd it io n o f th e p ha rm acy in a v id eo th atwe ha ve rev ie wed . In the li gh t o f th is reco rdof u ns an it ary co nd it io ns , th e n atur e o f th e ev id en ce b ei ng so ug ht , andou r de ci si on inSch an dl , we can no t s ay th atth e se iz ur e o f so m e n on -co ntro ll ed m ed ic at io ns an d p ers on al it em s fr om Gord on ’s ph arm acy vio la te d h er cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral rig ht . B. Gord on ’s Fede ra l Cl ai ms Agai ns t the Sh er if f Fa il as a Ma tt er

of La w. Gor do n a ss ert s cl ai m s fo r m un ic ip al li ab il it y

ag ai ns t the Sh eri ff u nd er se ct io n 1 98 3 o n t he gro un d t ha t “ W il co x’s wro ng do in g g rew o utof t he Sh eri ff’s [O]ffice cu st om , po li cy , or p ract ic e.” Gor do n’s cl ai m s fa il to th e ex te ntth atth ey are b as edon he r arre stan d the all eg edwithh ol di ng of p ro pe rty afterth e d is m is sa l 15of

he r cri m in al ch arg e b ecau se sh e h as no t es tabl is he d aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o n th os e g ro un ds . See Ca se , 55 5 F .3dat 1 32 8. Go rd onals o a ss ert s a c la im ba se d o n th e se iz ur e o f it em s o ut si de th e sc op e o f th e se arch warran t, wh ic h we m us t ad dr es s o n t he m eri ts . The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Sh eri ff aft er i t de te rm in edth atGord on ha d fa il edto est ab li sh a vi ol at io n o f he r fed eral rig ht s, b ut we can affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt o n a ny gro un d s up po rte d b y th e rec or d, Kru tz ig v. Pu lt e Hom e Co rp ., 60 2 F .3d12 31 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The p art ie s fu ll y bri efed on su m m ary jud gm en t wh ethe r th e Sh eri ff h adact edwith d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce to Gord on ’s fed eral rig ht s wh enhe all eg ed ly fail edto tra in an d s up erv is e h is de pu ti es ab ou t the law o f se arch an d s ei zu re. The reco rdco nt ai ns ev id en ce o f on ly a sin gl e p ur

po rte d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on , no t the “pa tt ernof s im il ar co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns by unt rai ne d e m pl oyees [t ha t] is ‘ or di na ril y ne ces sa ry ’ to de m on st rat e d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce fo r pu rp os es of f ai lu re t o t rai n,” Co nn ic k v . Tho m ps on , 56 3 U.S. --, -- , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 35 0, 1 36 0 (2 01 1) (qu ot in g B d. o f Co m m ’rs of Bry anCn ty. v. Br own , 52 0 U.S. 3 97 , 40 9, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 38 2, 1 39 1 (1 99 7) ). The reco rdis als o u nd is pu te d t ha t Dep uty W il co x a tt en de d “ ap pr ox im at el y th irt y cl as se s o n s earc he s an d s ei zu res ” dur in g h is care er wi th th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce.

16Bec au se th e rec or d fa il s t o s up po rt Go rd on ’s all eg at io ns of d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce,

we affi rm th e su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Sh eri ff o n t hi s al te rn at iv e g ro un d. C. Th e Gor do ns ’ St at e Clai ms Agai ns t Dep ut y W il cox a nd th e S he ri ff Fai l a s a Mat te r o

f La w. The Gord on s’ cla im s u nd er s ta te law fa il . Brid ge t Go rd on all eg edcla im s fo r fal se arre stan d c on ve rs io n, an d h er h us ba ndall eg eda cl ai m forlo ss of co ns orti um . W e ad dr es s ea ch intu rn . Bri dg etGord on arg ue s t ha t “ ei th er Wilc ox or t he Sh eri ff i s l iabl e fo r fal se arre stan d s umm ary jud gm en t m us t b e rev ers ed ” b utth atarg um en t fa il s. Pro babl e cau se is anaffi rm at iv e d efen se to a cl ai m forfal se arre st , Cit y

of S t. Pe te rs bu rg v. Aus tri no , 89 8 S o. 2 d 9 55 , 95 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 05 ), an d we h av e ex pl ai ne d th atpro babl e cau se supp orte d Go rd on ’s arres t. See Ran ki n v . Evan s, 1 33 F.3d 14 25 , 14 31 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ [T]he st an da rdforde te rm in in g the ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se is th e sa m e und er b ot h F lo rid a an d fe de ral law[ ] . . . . ”). Gor do n’s cl ai m

forco nv ers io n a ga in stth e Sh eri ff l ik ewis e fai ls . “ ‘[T] he es se nc e o f anact io n fo r co nv ers io n i s n otth e acqui si ti on of p ro pe rty by th e wro ng do er, b utrathe r th e ref us al to su rren de r th e p os se ss io n o f th e subjec t pe rs on al ty after d em an d fo r po ss es si on by one en ti tl edth eret o.’” Jo se ph v. Ch an in , 94 0 S o. 2 d 4 83 , 48 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Mu rrel l v . Trio

17Towi ng Serv ., Inc ., 29 4 S o. 2 d 3 31 , 33 2 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 74 )). Gor do n

co nc ed es th atsh e d idno t d em an d re tu rnof t he sei zedpro pe rty befo re s he ex ecu te d a n a ss ig nm en t o f as se ts infav orof C ard in al Heal th , whi chin cl ud edhe r

“ rig ht s, t it le s an d i nt eres ts inan d t o p ro pe rty sei zedby the Sh eri ff.” Be cau se Gor do n d idno t d em an d re tu rnof the sei zedpro pe rty befo re h er p os se ss ory in te res t in th atpro pe rty term in at ed , sh e h as no cla im forco nv ers io n a ga in stth e Sh eri ff. Fi na ll y , Mit ch el l Go rd on ’s cla im forlo ss of c on so rti um

fai ls . Thatcla im

is de riv at iv e, an d the Gord on s h av e o th erwi se fai le d t o p res en t a v iabl e cl ai m . IV. CONCLUSI ON W e AFFIRMth e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t b y

th e d is tri ctco urt.

18