[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13632

____________________

MEGAN GARCIA,

VICTOR REVILL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

PAMELA CASEY, 

SCOTT GILLILAND,

SUE ASHWORTH,

BRIAN K. RATLIFF,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 1 of 32
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:18-cv-02079-KOB,

2:19-cv-00114-KOB

____________________

Before BRANCH and BRASHER, Circuit Judges, and WINSOR,∗ District 

Judge.

BRASHER, Circuit Judge:

The main question in this appeal is whether government officers are entitled to qualified immunity for arresting attorneys Megan Garcia and Victor Revill for stashing their client’s cellphone in 

a bag only minutes before the police executed a search warrant for 

child pornography on that phone. Sheriff’s deputies Sue Ashworth 

and Brian Ratliff made the arrest, and Garcia and Revill allege that 

District Attorney Pamela Casey and Assistant District Attorney 

Scott Gilliland ordered the arrest. Following the arrest, DA Casey, 

in a statement to the press, and ADA Gilliland, on the courthouse 

steps, publicly accused Garcia and Revill of concealing evidence of 

a crime and knowingly possessing child pornography. 

After Garcia and Revill were tried and acquitted for the statelaw crimes of obstructing governmental operations and refusal to 

permit an inspection, they filed this federal lawsuit. Garcia and 

∗ Honorable Allen C. Winsor, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 2 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 3

Revill sued Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff, DA Casey, and ADA 

Gilliland for unlawful arrest. They also sued Casey and Gilliland for 

defamation. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district 

court entered judgment against Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff and 

denied DA Casey and ADA Gilliland’s motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The district court also denied the 

district attorneys’ motion for summary judgment on Garcia and 

Revill’s defamation claims, concluding that the district attorneys

were not entitled to state-agent immunity under Alabama law. 

This appeal is complicated by our inconsistent case law on 

qualified immunity for false arrest claims. Despite the Supreme 

Court clarifying the standards for assessing probable cause and

qualified immunity in District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577

(2018), the courts in our Circuit have only sometimes applied that 

decision. Accordingly, we once again affirm that the test in Wesby

should be applied to answer whether probable cause exists for an 

arrest or qualified immunity prevents liability for a false arrest 

claim. 

Under Wesby, we believe the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against the plaintiffs’ false arrest claim. But we 

agree with the district court that the district attorneys are not entitled to immunity under Alabama law on the defamation claims. Alabama law makes clear that state-agent immunity is unavailable 

when the agent commits intentional tortious conduct, such as defamation. On remand, the district court should determine whether 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 3 of 32
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

to exercise pendent jurisdiction over those state-law claims given 

our resolution of the federal claims.

I.

A.

The parties’ dispute arises against the background of two related investigations—one civil and one criminal—of a non-party 

named Lloyd Edwards. Garcia, an attorney at Revill’s law firm,represented Edwards in proceedings related to the civil investigation 

conducted by the Blount County Department of Human Resources. But that civil investigation spawned a criminal investigation when investigators informed police of their belief that Edwards had committed child abuse and possessed child pornography.

In December 2016, Edwards’s ex-wife filed a protection for 

abuse petition against Edwards in state court, which alleged sexual 

abuse of Edwards’s minor stepdaughter. Garcia appeared in the 

case on behalf of Edwards with Revill accompanying her. The 

court set a hearing in that case for February 23, 2017.

Around the same time, Kerry Ward, an investigator at DHR,

began looking into allegations that Edwards had sexually abused 

his stepdaughter. DHR received information that suggested the existence of inappropriate pictures of the stepdaughter on Edwards’s

cell phone. DHR workers also discovered that Edwards’s Google 

account showed that he had been reviewing pornography that 

would best be categorized as legal pornography featuring actors 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 4 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 5

who purport to be 18 or 19 years old. In an interview with Ward, 

Edwards denied abusing his stepdaughter, but admitted that he had 

a pornography problem and viewed “teen porn” on his cell phone.

Ward consulted Sheriff’s Deputy Ashworth, and they interviewed Edwards’s stepdaughter and her mother in early January.

The stepdaughter alleged that Edwards molested her. The mother 

told them that Edwards was a “porn addict” and that she had found 

“teen porn on his computer” and evidence of illicit pornography.

Ward filed a petition for dependency against Edwards alleging sexual abuse and neglect. Deputy Ashworth began to consider criminal charges.

Returning to the protection from abuse dispute between Edwards and his ex-wife, two important things happened in the lead 

up to the February hearing. First, knowing that her client was under investigation by DHR, Garcia subpoenaed the DHR investigative file to be delivered to her at the February 23 hearing. Second, 

knowing that Edwards would appear at the courthouse for the 

hearing, Deputy Ashworth asked for and received a search warrant

for “any and all cellular devices” in Edwards’s possession that she 

intended to serve on Edwards after the hearing. Specifically, the 

warrant permitted Ashworth to search “the person of Lloyd Clinton Edwards and the vehicle driven by Lloyd Clinton Edwards.”

The warrant was issued based on Ashworth’s belief that Edwards’s 

phone contained evidence of child pornography.

On the day of the hearing, Deputy Ashworth and Deputy 

Brian Ratliff, who had agreed to help her execute the warrant at the 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 5 of 32
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

courthouse, monitored the hearing via “video surveillance monitors . . . located at the security desk.” After the hearing, Ward delivered her DHR investigative file to the judge pursuant to Garcia’s 

subpoena. Ward reported to Deputy Ashworth that the attorneys 

and the judge left with the file, and Ashworth saw the judge and 

“the attorneys for both sides” go out through “the rear of the courtroom” toward the judge’s chambers. Deputy Ashworth knew that 

the DHR file detailed not only Edwards’s family members’ allegations of sexual abuse, but also contained “documents and details . . 

. about child pornography on Mr. Edwards’[s] cell phones.” About

fifteen minutes later, Deputy Ashworth watched as the attorneys 

returned to the courtroom with the file.

According to Ratliff, upon leaving the courtroom but 

“[p]rior to exiting the courthouse, Mr. Edwards and the attorneys 

stopped in a small alcove near the elevator on the first floor.” The 

courthouse surveillance video shows Garcia and Revill speaking 

with Edwards in the small alcove for about ten minutes. After several minutes of discussion, Edwards takes out two of his phones 

and inspects them while the attorneys look on. After a few minutes, 

Edwards gives one to Revill who passes it to Garcia to stow in her 

satchel.

Deputy Ashworth had, by this point, “left the video monitoring desk to stand outside the courthouse and wait for Edwards’[s] exit to serve the search warrant.” But Ward was still inside near the alcove where she “overheard Mr. Edwards and his 

attorneys discussing Mr. Edwards’s phones.” After hearing that, 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 6 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 7

she says that she “went to the security desk” and “informed [Deputy Ratliff] what was going on.” They “watched the cameras” and 

saw Edwards “give his phone to the attorneys.” Ward then texted 

Deputy “Ashworth and informed her of the phone exchange.”

According to her testimony, Deputy Ashworth believed at 

this point that “the attorneys were trying to hide the child pornography evidence contained on the phones and elude a possible 

search warrant for the phones.” But both Garcia and Revill deny 

having any knowledge that a search warrant existed for Edwards’s 

phones or even that DHR suspected that Edwards had child pornography on his phones. Revill and Garcia claim that they took the 

phones from Edwards as evidence to use in the protection from 

abuse litigation.

Eventually, the officers confronted Edwards and his attorneys outside the courthouse. An officer’s body camera recorded 

the exchange between Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff and attorneys Garcia and Revill. The body camera video reflects the following interactions. 

Deputy Ratliff stops Edwards, Garcia, and Revill. Deputy 

Ashworth then approaches the group and says, apparently to Revill, “I have a search warrant for that phone [Edwards] just handed 

you. I’m from the Sheriff’s Office.” Revill says, “Here we go,” accepts the search warrant, and begins to read it.

Revill, while reading the search warrant, notices Garcia 

begin to open the bag containing the cell phone. Revill lifts his finger to Garcia in an apparent “hold on” motion, and Garcia stops 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 7 of 32
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

opening the bag. After reading the warrant, Revill notes: “The warrant that you all have is for his person and his vehicle;” to which 

Deputy Ashworth responds, “that’s correct.” Revill then says, “[Edwards] has given [you] the phone that’s on his person.” Deputy 

Ratliff then says to Revill, “I have video of [Edwards] handing the 

phone to you, and you handing the phone to [Garcia], and it’s in 

that satchel right now.” Revill responds, “you do have that [on 

video] . . . but when you came out here and served this search warrant, that was not on his person. So you all are not entitled to that.” 

Revill then hands the warrant back to Deputy Ashworth.

Deputy Ratliff then says, “we’ll go the other route to get that 

other phone.” At that point, Deputy Ashworth answers a phone 

call and steps out of the frame of the video. She says to the person

on the other end of the call, “we’ve got it on video that he handed 

his cell phone to his attorney . . . and it’s in the satchel that’s right 

here.” While Deputy Ashworth is still on the phone call, Revill asks 

Deputy Ratliff, “are we being detained?” Deputy Ratliff answers,

“at this moment in time, I’m going to have to detain you until we 

determine the next course of action.” Meanwhile, Deputy Ashworth says to the person on the other end of the phone call that 

“no, they’re not denying [taking the phones], we’ve got it on 

video.” She then reads the search warrant to the person on the 

other end of the call and says, “I’ve got [a warrant for] his person 

and vehicle.” A silence of about twenty seconds passes before Deputy Ashworth approaches Revill and Garcia and informs them: 

“We either need the phone out of the satchel, or we will have to 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 8 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 9

detain you and get a search warrant to get the phone.” Revill responds, “We’re not going to run.”

Then, Deputy Ashworth turns away from Garcia and Revill

and speaks into her phone again: “Do what? Say it again.” Deputy 

Ashworth turns around and tells Garcia and Revill, “You both are 

under arrest for obstructing governmental operations.” Revill repeats, “Obstructing government operations?” Deputy Ashworth 

says, “[T]hat’s correct.”

Deputy Ashworth later testified that after she had served the 

search warrant, she called DA Casey to ask for legal advice about

how to proceed regarding the phone in Garcia’s bag. Deputy Ashworth said that she spoke to both DA Casey and ADA Gilliland on 

this call. Deputy Ashworth testified that at some point, Gilliland 

and Casey read her Section 13A-10-2 of the Alabama Code, which

prohibits obstructing governmental operations. Deputy Ashworth 

claims that Casey then advised her to arrest Revill and Garcia. Casey and Gilliland both deny advising Deputy Ashworth to arrest 

Revill and Garcia.

In any event, we turn back to the video. After the arrests, 

Revill explains his “position” to the officers. He says, “[T]his search 

warrant . . . was given to [Edwards] after he gave us [the phones] 

to use in his defense. So we did not do anything to keep you all 

from doing you all’s job. So if you want to take this satchel and go 

through it, we’re not preventing you from that.” Deputy Ratliff responds, “I understand your point, but understand ours. From the 

moment [Edwards] has entered this courthouse, he’s been under 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 9 of 32
10 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

surveillance for the purposes of this warrant. I saw you, [Edwards] 

and [Garcia] get off the elevator . . . you looked up [at the security 

camera] two or three times . . . then he handed you the phone and 

you handed it to [Garcia] and she put it in that bag right there. And 

that is evidence for this search warrant.” Revill then says, “And you 

agree that you served this search warrant subsequent to that. After 

that. Alright? And wouldn’t you agree that we are not preventing 

you from getting to [the phones]?” Deputy Ratliff responds, “I 

mean, we can sit here and split these hairs all day.”

As Garcia and Revill were being taken away, ADA Gilliland 

stood in the courthouse door and said aloud, “Y’all are the ones 

who are now knowingly in possession of child pornography? That 

was a bad mistake.”

Deputy Ashworth charged Revill and Garcia with obstructing governmental operations and refusal to permit an inspection 

under Ala. Code § 13A-10-3. A state magistrate issued arrest warrants. Deputy Ashworth also obtained a search warrant for Garcia’s 

bag and retrieved two cell phones. According to DA Casey, she 

later concluded that Deputy Ashworth had probable cause to arrest 

Revill and Garcia for obstructing governmental operations. After 

retrieving Edwards’s phones, Deputy Ashworth sent them to the 

FBI for analysis; based on that analysis, she testified to her belief

that “[t]he phones contained many images of child pornography.”

About one month later, an article about the arrests appeared 

on a news website and attributed multiple statements to Casey.

The article reports that Casey said, “officers had a search warrant 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 10 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 11

seeking recovery of any device or devices, including the subject’s 

cell phone or cell phones, which were believed to contain child pornography.” Further, she stated that “[w]ithin minutes of learning 

that their client was alleged to have used his cell phone to produce 

and/or view child pornography, Mr. Revill and Ms. Garcia took 

possession of their client’s phones and attempted to conceal the 

phones from law enforcement.” Casey told the reporter that Garcia 

and Revill’s acts were “not only illegal, but unethical.” Finally, she 

said the District Attorney’s Office “will not be intimidated by a lawyer or anyone else who continues to attempt to manipulate the judicial process and/or criminal justice system by public grandstanding.”

About a year after the arrests, a state judge entered directed 

verdicts of acquittal in the criminal cases against Revill and Garcia. 

Although Edwards was arrested, he has not been charged with any 

child pornography-related offenses as of the writing of this opinion.

B.

As it relates to this appeal, Garcia brought three claims: a 

Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against Ashworth, Ratliff, Casey, and Gilliland; a defamation 

claim against Gilliland; and a defamation claim against Casey. For 

his part, Revill brought the same claims as Garcia and many more.

But the district court found that Revill opposed summary judgment only on his Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim against 

Ashworth, Ratliff, Casey, and Gilliland and his defamation claims

against Casey and Gilliland. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 11 of 32
12 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

In ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff did not 

have arguable probable cause to arrest Revill and Garcia. Accordingly, the court granted Garcia and Revill’s motions for summary 

judgment as to the liability of Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff for 

unlawful arrest. It therefore denied Deputies Ashworth and Ratliff’s motions for summary judgment on unlawful arrest. The court 

also denied Casey and Gilliland’s motions for summary judgment 

on Garcia and Revill’s unlawful arrest claims based on qualified immunity. But Garcia and Revill did not move for summary judgment as to Casey and Gilliland’s Fourth Amendment liability for 

allegedly advising Deputies Ratliff and Ashworth to arrest them.

Finally, the district court found that there were genuine issues of 

material fact as to Garcia and Revill’s defamation claims against Casey and Gilliland. It therefore denied all parties’ motions for summary judgment as to the defamation claims and allowed the claims 

to proceed to trial. Ashworth, Ratliff, Gilliland, and Casey timely

appealed.

II.

We review de novo both “a probable cause determination,” 

United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1010 (11th Cir. 2012), and 

“the district court’s determination of state law,” Price v. Time, Inc., 

416 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court’s denial of 

summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity constitutes “an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 12 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 13

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). And because Casey and 

Gilliland appeal “both the denial of [state-agent] immunity and the 

denial of qualified immunity from the same procedural posture and 

under the identical assumption regarding the validity of the district 

court’s summary-judgment facts,” the collateral-order doctrine furnishes this Court with appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of

Casey and Gilliland’s state-agent-immunity defenses. Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1260 n.9 (11th Cir. 2000).

III.

Garcia and Revill brought federal and state claims, and the 

defendants have raised distinct defenses as to those claims. All the 

defendants argue that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ federal false arrest claims. Casey 

and Gilliland also argue that the district court erred in denying 

them state-agent immunity on the plaintiffs’ state-law defamation 

claims.

We agree with the first contention but disagree with the second. Because of the defendants’ collective knowledge at the time 

of arrest, we hold that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Garcia and Revill. 

That is, we believe “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal 

landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law 

as permitting the arrests here.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 593. On the 

other hand, we conclude that Casey and Gilliland cannot be afforded state-agent immunity for defamation. Even if Casey and Gilliland made their allegedly defamatory statements as part of their 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 13 of 32
14 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

official duties, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that stateagent immunity does not protect against intentional defamation.

A.

We will start with qualified immunity for the federal claims. 

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability 

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 

person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 

(2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). For 

qualified immunity to apply, a government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority when the 

alleged wrongful acts occurred. Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 

1221 (11th Cir. 2016). “Once it has been determined that an official 

was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that qualified immunity is inappropriate.” Id. “First, the plaintiff must show that the official’s 

alleged conduct violated a constitutionally protected right.” Id.

“Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right was clearly 

established at the time of the misconduct.” Id. “‘Clearly established’

means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that 

what he is doing is unlawful.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589 (quoting Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

A plaintiff can demonstrate that a right was clearly established in three ways. First, “materially similar” case law may give 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 14 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 15

an officer fair notice that his conduct would violate a constitutional 

right. Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152, 1159 (11th Cir. 

2005). Second, the plaintiff can show the existence of a “broader, 

clearly established principle [that] should control the novel facts [of 

his] situation.” Id. In other words, even “[i]f there is no case law 

directly on point, general statements of the law contained within 

the Constitution, statute, or caselaw may sometimes provide ‘fair 

warning’ of unlawful conduct.” Id. (quotation omitted and alteration adopted). Finally, in rare instances, an official may still have 

notice when his conduct “so obviously violates” a constitutional 

right. Id. Absent one of these standards being met, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 

(2004).

Although prosecutors generally are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken as an advocate for the state, a prosecutor 

may only be afforded qualified immunity when performing a function outside of that role. Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1282−83 

(11th Cir. 1999) (recognizing a “prosecutor has only qualified immunity when performing a function that is not associated with his 

role as an advocate for the state”). This exception includes cases 

when prosecutors give legal advice to the police during an investigation. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 496 (1991). Accordingly, even 

though Casey and Gilliland cannot rely on absolute prosecutorial 

immunity in defending against the false arrest claims, they may 

raise the defense of qualified immunity. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 15 of 32
16 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

Everyone agrees, and the district court held, that the defendants were performing discretionary functions when they arrested 

Garcia and Revill. But the district court denied their qualified immunity defense because it held that the officers did not have “arguable probable cause” to make an arrest. 

The defendants argue that the district court erred in two respects. First, the defendants argue that the district court applied the 

wrong legal standard to assess qualified immunity for a false arrest 

claim. Second, the defendants argue that, under the correct standard, they had arguable probable cause to arrest Garcia and Revill.

We agree and address each contention in turn.

1.

We will start with the legal standard for assessing a qualified 

immunity defense to a false arrest claim. An officer violates a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures if the 

officer arrests that person without probable cause to make the arrest. Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1137 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Probable cause is established where facts, “derived from reasonably 

trustworthy information, are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being 

committed.” Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. 

2010). “[T]he correct legal standard to evaluate whether an officer 

had probable cause to seize a suspect is to ‘ask whether a reasonable officer could conclude . . . that there was a substantial chance 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 16 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 17

of criminal activity.’” Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4th 891, 902 (11th 

Cir. 2022) (quoting Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588).1

But to establish the defense of qualified immunity for a false 

arrest claim, we have held that “an officer need not have actual 

probable cause, but only ‘arguable’ probable cause.” Brown, 608 

F.3d at 734 (internal citation omitted). An officer has arguable probable cause if “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as 

permitting the arrests.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 593. An officer lacks 

arguable probable cause only if “the state of the law on the date of 

the alleged misconduct makes it obvious that the [officer’s] acts violated the plaintiff’s rights in the specific set of circumstances at issue.” Washington, 25 F. 4th at 903 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, “the dispositive question is whether it was already clearly established, as a matter of law, that at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, an 

objective officer could not have concluded reasonably that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff under the particular

1 As we explained in Washington, the probable cause standard this Court applied in Cozzi v. City of Birmingham, 892 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018), and 

on which the district court relied, is incorrect. 25 F.4th at 900–02. The incorrect standard required “facts and circumstances” that “would cause a prudent 

person to believe” a crime was committed. Id. at 899. The correct standard, 

promulgated by the Supreme Court in Wesby, is “whether a reasonable officer 

could conclude . . . that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity.” 

138 S. Ct. at 588. Accordingly, the district court erred, as did this Court in 

Cozzi, when it applied the outdated probable cause standard.

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 17 of 32
18 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

circumstances Defendants confronted.” Gates v. Khokhar, 884 F.3d 

1290, 1303 (11th Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted).

We have not often explained how the doctrine of “arguable 

probable clause” relates to the defense of qualified immunity more 

generally. The touchtone of qualified immunity is that officers 

must be “on notice their conduct is unlawful” before being held 

personally liable for a constitutional violation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 

U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (quotation omitted). And, as explained above, 

we have recognized three ways to establish notice on the part of an 

officer. First, there may be an existing judicial precedent “where an 

officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 590 (quotation 

omitted and alteration adopted). Second, there may be a source of

law—such as a statute—that is so clearly on point that a precedent 

with similar circumstances is unnecessary. Mercado, 407 F.3d at

1159. Third, the officer’s conduct might be so egregious or outrageous that every reasonable officer would know the conduct is unlawful. E.g., Patel v. City of Madison, 959 F.3d 1330, 1343–44 (11th 

Cir. 2020) (excessive force).

We believe the doctrine of “arguable probable cause” is a 

useful shorthand to collapse these three inquiries into a single question in a wrongful arrest case. That is, we must ask whether “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of 

the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 593. So an officer may lack arguable

probable cause because an existing precedent establishes that there 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 18 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 19

was no actual probable cause for an arrest on similar facts. Or an 

officer may lack arguable probable cause because the text of an applicable statute plainly precludes him from making an arrest under 

that statute. Or the officer may have been so lacking in evidence to 

support probable cause that the arrest was obviously unconstitutional. But the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case

is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other 

qualified immunity case. Unless the law “makes it obvious that the 

[officer’s] acts violated the plaintiff’s rights,” Washington, 25 F. 4th 

at 903, the officer has qualified immunity.

2. 

We now apply this standard to the facts here. Under our 

precedents, the plaintiffs “bear[] the burden of proving both that 

the defendant violated [their] constitutional right[s] and that ‘the 

right was clearly established at the time of the violation.’” Washington, 25 F.4th at 898 (quoting Barnes v. Zaccari, 669 F.3d 1295, 1303 

(11th Cir. 2012)). Under the “any-crime rule” an officer is “insulate[d] from false-arrest claims so long as probable cause existed to 

arrest the suspect for some crime, even if it was not the crime the 

officer thought or said had occurred.” Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 

1147, 1158 (11th Cir. 2020). Applying the “any-crime rule” to qualified immunity, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he had 

arguable probable cause to arrest a suspect for any crime, even if 

that crime was not “‘the offense announced by the officer at the 

time of the arrest.’” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1195–96 (11th Cir. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 19 of 32
20 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

2002) (quoting Bailey v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Alachua Cnty., 956 

F.2d 1112, 1119 n.4 (11th Cir. 1992).

The defendants argue on appeal that actual or arguable 

probable cause existed to arrest Garcia and Revill for obstructing 

governmental operations.2 The existence of actual or arguable 

probable cause “depends on the elements of the alleged crime and 

the operative fact pattern.” Brown, 608 F.3d at 735 (citing Skop, 485 

F.3d at 1137−38). To determine whether an official had actual or 

arguable probable cause for an arrest, “we must look at the totality 

of the circumstances,” Washington, 25 F.4th at 902 (quotation omitted), including what the officials knew at the time of the arrest. 

Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 592; Jones, 174 F.3d at 1283. This inquiry includes “the collective knowledge of law officers if they maintained 

at least a minimal level of communication during their investigation.” United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486, 1494 (11th Cir. 1985).

See also Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(“Probable cause may exist based on the collective knowledge of 

law enforcement officials derived from reasonably trustworthy information.”).

We will assume without deciding that the officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing 

2 The defendants argue in the alternative that probable cause or arguable probable existed to arrest Garcia and Revill for evidence tampering and possession 

of child pornography. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants waived these 

arguments by failing to raise them in the district court. We need not address 

these arguments because of our conclusion that there was arguable probable 

cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing governmental operations.

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 20 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 21

governmental operations, but, examining the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that they had arguable probable cause. 

Section 13A-10-2 of the Alabama Code criminalizes “obstructing 

governmental operations.” In relevant part, the statute provides 

that “[a] person commits the crime of obstructing governmental 

operations if” the person “[i]ntentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function” “by 

means of intimidation, physical force or interference or by any 

other independently unlawful act.” Ala. Code § 13A-10-2(a)(1).

For starters, the plaintiffs have not pointed us to an Alabama 

or federal court that has found an absence of probable cause to arrest under Alabama’s obstruction statute in a similar situation. The 

Alabama courts have interpreted this statute to require that a person must physically interfere with law enforcement to be liable. See 

D.A.D.O. v. State, 57 So. 3d 798, 806 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). That is, 

“words alone” are not enough. Id. But, other than that line of cases, 

the Alabama courts have not interpreted the statute in any meaningful respect.

For our part, we have examined Alabama’s obstruction statute three times in the context of probable cause for an arrest, but 

our opinions in those cases do not support the plaintiffs. In Grider 

v. City of Auburn, our only published opinion, an officer argued that 

he had probable cause because the plaintiff had interfered with an 

arrest. We rejected that argument, and denied qualified immunity, 

because Alabama’s obstruction statute expressly “does not apply to 

‘the obstruction, impairment or hindrance of the making of an 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 21 of 32
22 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

arrest.’” 618 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Ala. Code § 13A–10–2(b)). Our 

two unpublished opinions are equally unhelpful to the plaintiffs because we found at least arguable probable cause for both arrests. 

See Dawson v. Jackson, 748 Fed. Appx. 298 (11th Cir. 2018) (arguable 

probable cause when plaintiff prevented officers from abating a 

nuisance on his property without a search warrant); Phillips v. Irvin, 

222 Fed. Appx. 928, 929 (11th Cir. 2007) (arguable probable cause 

existed when plaintiff refused to “back off” during traffic stop).

None of these authorities provided notice to the defendants 

that arresting Garcia and Revill for obstruction would have violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. Grider is distinguishable because it involved an arrest for a reason that the statute 

expressly forbids. Dawson, although unpublished, is the most factually analogous decision, and it suggests that the law was not clearly 

established in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 

1304, 1319 n.14 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[N]on-binding persuasive authority can be used to indicate that a particular constitutional right is 

not clearly established.”). There, the plaintiff was arrested because 

he obstructed the officers from executing a nuisance abatement order on his property. Dawson, 748 F. App’x at 299. Here, the plaintiffs 

were arrested because they interfered with the officers’ execution 

of a search warrant by taking the target’s property into their possession. In Dawson, as here, the plaintiff told the officers that he 

would cooperate if they secured a warrant. Id. at 299. But we nonetheless concluded in Dawson that the officers had arguable probable 

cause to arrest him under Alabama’s obstruction statute.

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 22 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 23

Because there is no factually analogous case law that supports the plaintiffs’ position, we ask whetherthe text of the obstruction statute itself clearly established that the defendants lacked 

probable cause on these facts. The statute is broad in scope. It provides that a “person commits the crime of obstructing governmental operations if, by means of . . . interference or by any other independently unlawful act, he . . . [i]ntentionally obstructs, impairs or 

hinders the administration of law or other governmental function.”

Ala. Code § 13A-10-2. Notably, “administration of law” is not defined under the applicable title. See Ala. Code § 13A-10-1 (definitions section).

Although we do not and need not definitively resolve this 

state statute’s meaning, a reasonable interpretation of the obstruction statute is that it prohibits hiding evidence of a crime from law 

enforcement. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, App. Note 4(d) (noting that “destroying or concealing or directing or procuring another person to 

destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an official investigation or judicial proceeding” is an example of obstructive conduct). 

Indeed, Garcia and Revill do not argue otherwise. Instead, they argue that the defendants had insufficient reason to believe that they 

were hiding their client’s phone from law enforcement. 

We cannot agree. Looking at what the defendants collectively knew at the time of the arrest, one can see how a reasonable 

officer could conclude that the plaintiffs’ actions—at least as the defendants perceived them—fit the obstruction statute. Deputy Ashworth was at the courthouse to execute a search warrant on 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 23 of 32
24 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

Edwards with specific authorization to seize his cell phones. She 

was aware through interviews with Edwards, his wife, and his stepdaughter, that Edwards’s phone likely contained child pornography. The DHR investigation file reflected that Edwards had allegedly used his cellphone to take explicit photographs of his stepdaughter. Edwards’ attorneys had received the DHR file at a hearing. Shortly after the hearing, the officers then witnessed Edwards 

review one of his phones and hand it to his attorneys who stashed 

the phone in a bag. By taking possession of the phone even though 

the police were waiting to execute a warrant to seize it, the attorneys arguably “hinder[ed] the administration of law” by a physical 

act.

Garcia and Revill also argue that their status as attorneys undermines probable cause to believe that they intended to hide evidence of a crime. Again, we disagree. Attorney misconduct is all 

too common. See Douglas R. Richmond, Understanding the CrimeFraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Immunity, 70 S.C.L. REV. 1, 4–5 nn. 18–32 (2018) (collecting cases). 

And Alabama’s obstruction statute does not exempt attorneys. See 

generally Ala. Code § 13A-10-2. In fact, no one disputes that an attorney could violate the obstruction statute if she intentionally hid 

evidence that her client had committed a crime to prevent its discovery by law enforcement. See e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation, 

842 F.2d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 1987) (an “attorney’s assistance” may 

not be “obtained in furtherance of . . . criminal or fraudulent activity”). 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 24 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 25

Garcia and Revill next argue that they should not have been 

arrested because they had an innocent explanation for taking possession of Edwards’s phones. But the Supreme Court has held that 

“probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 588. 

Intent must be inferred from actions. And, here, an officer could 

reasonably infer that Garcia and Revill intended to stop the police 

from examining their client’s phone, even if they could not have 

known the police would come that very day.

Relatedly, the district court held that the officers lacked arguable probable cause because the plaintiffs could not have known 

that a search warrant had been issued for the phone when they 

took it. We cannot agree that this distinction undermines arguable 

probable cause to arrest under the obstruction statute. Of course, 

the case for criminal intent would be stronger here if the attorneys 

had known that the police were only moments away from executing a search warrant when they stashed their client’s phone in their 

bag. But nothing in the statute suggests that someone who intends 

to hide or destroy evidence of a crime can be held liable for obstruction only if he knows that the police are already on their way.

In fact, other Alabama criminal laws explicitly reject this distinction. Cf. Ala. Code §13A-10-129(a)(1) (“A person commits the crime 

of tampering with physical evidence if, believing that an official 

proceeding is pending or may be instituted, . . . [the person] . . . conceals, [or] removes . . . physical evidence with intent to impair its . 

. . availability in the pending or prospective proceeding.” (emphasis 

added)).

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 25 of 32
26 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

In short, we think a reasonable officer “could have interpreted,” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 593, the obstruction statute to preclude

hiding evidence of a crime and could have concluded from this unusual chain of events that the attorneys took their client’s phone 

for that purpose. We concede, as the state court found in the state 

criminal action, that Garcia and Revill’s conduct does not fit 

squarely within the obstruction statute. They did not, for example, 

destroy the phone or flee from the officers when confronted outside the courthouse. But our precedent makes clear that the eventual weakness of the criminal case against the plaintiffs does not 

preclude a finding that actual or arguable probable cause existed. 

See Wood v. Kesler, 323 F.3d 872, 880 n.12 (11th Cir. 2003).

Lastly, despite the lack of materially similar case law or a 

mismatch between the facts and the text of the applicable statute, 

Garcia and Revill argue that the violation here was so clear and obvious that any reasonable officer would know that the arrest violated the law. Specifically, they argue that no reasonable police officer would believe that he could arrest someone just for refusing 

to provide consent for a search.

We do not doubt that all reasonable officers know that it is 

unconstitutional to arrest someone merely because she refuses to 

consent to a search. See United States v. Alexander, 835 F.2d 1406, 

1409 n.3 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[A] defendant’s refusal to consent to a 

search cannot establish probable cause to search.”). But this argument ignores the context of the arrest. Garcia and Revill were arrested only after officers secured a warrant to seize a phone and 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 26 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 27

witnessed them take possession of that phone in a way that would

prevent its discovery by law enforcement. As explained above, it is 

not unreasonable for an officer to believe that the conduct the officers witnessed was criminal. Accordingly, we cannot say that this 

is “the rare ‘obvious case,’ where the unlawfulness of the officer’s 

conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does 

not address similar circumstances.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 591 (quoting Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199). 

In summary, we do not decide whether hiding evidence violates the Alabama obstruction statute or whether the defendants

had actual probable cause under that statute. We are confident 

that, even if the defendants did not have probable cause, their error 

did not violate clearly established law, entitling them to qualified 

immunity.

B.

We now turn to the state-law defamation claims. Along with 

denying Casey and Gilliland’s motion for summary judgment on 

Garcia and Revill’s false arrest claims, the district court denied 

them state-agent immunity under Alabama law. Casey and Gilliland argue that they are entitled to state-agent immunity for their 

public statements alleging that Garcia and Revill engaged in unethical and criminal conduct by intentionally harboring child pornography. We disagree. 

To establish a prima facie case of defamation under Alabama 

law, a plaintiff must show (1) “that the defendant was at least negligent” (2) “in publishing” (3) “a false and defamatory statement to 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 27 of 32
28 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

another” (4) “concerning the plaintiff,” (5) “which is either actionable without having to prove special harm (actionable per se) or actionable upon allegations and proof of special harm (actionable per 

quod).” Nelson v. Lapeyrouse Grain Corp., 534 So. 2d 1085, 1091 (Ala.

1988). When the defamation claim is brought against a state official, whether state-agent immunity exists should be answered before undertaking the prima facie inquiry. See Gary v. Crouch, 867 So. 

2d 310, 313 (Ala. 2003) (addressing immunity before deciding 

whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case). 

“State-agent immunity protects state employees, as agents 

of the State, in the exercise of their judgment in executing their 

work responsibilities.” Ex parte Hayles, 852 So. 2d 117, 122 (Ala. 

2002). Under Alabama law, state agents “shall be immune from 

civil liability” in personal-capacity suits where the conduct forming 

the “basis of the claim against the agent” falls within any of the five 

following categories: “(1) formulating plans, policies, or designs”;

“(2) exercising his or her judgment in the administration of a department or agency of government”; “(3) discharging duties imposed on a department or agency by statute, rule, or regulation”;

“(4) exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of 

the State, including, but not limited to, law-enforcement officers’ 

arresting or attempting to arrest persons”; or “(5) exercising judgment in the discharge of duties imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing persons of unsound mind, or educating students.” Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 

392, 405 (Ala. 2000) (plurality op.); see also Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d

173, 178 (Ala. 2000) (majority adopting Cranman test). Further,

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 28 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 29

state-agent immunity “shall not” attach if “the [s]tate agent acts 

willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her 

authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.” Cranman, 

792 So. 2d at 405.

Alabama courts have found that the so-called Cranman categories are flexible and encompass a broad suite of enumerated and 

unenumerated discretionary actions. Howard v. City of Atmore, 887 

So. 2d 201, 206 (Ala. 2003) (“Cranman is a restatement of the law of 

immunity, not a statute.”). Like qualified immunity, state-agent-immunity doctrine “ha[s] established a ‘burden-shifting’ process when 

a party raises the defense.” Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So. 2d 1046, 

1052 (Ala. 2003). Under that framework, the defendants “bear the 

burden of demonstrating that [plaintiffs’] claims arise from a function that would entitle them to immunity.” Id. “If the [defendants]

make such a showing, the burden then shifts to [plaintiffs], who, in 

order to deny [defendants] immunity from suit, must establish that 

[defendants] acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, 

or beyond their authority.” Giambrone, 874 So. 2d at 1052. 

The district court concluded that none of Casey’s or Gilliland’s conduct fell under the Cranman categories. But as Casey and 

Gilliland point out on appeal, responding to press inquiries and 

speaking to detainees falls “under executing their work responsibilities” as prosecutors. Ex parte Hayles, 852 So. 2d at 122. The National District Attorneys’ Association has recognized that responding to media inquiries specifically as “[a]n appropriate and professional relationship with the media is necessary to promote public 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 29 of 32
30 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

accountability and transparency in government.” Nat’l Dist. Att’ys 

Ass’n, National Prosecutor Standards § 2-14.1 Commentary (3d ed. 

2009) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the district court erred in 

concluding that Casey and Gilliland’s actions did not fall under any 

of the Cranman categories. 

But as explained above, even if an official’s conduct falls under one of the Cranman categories, an official is not entitled to stateagent immunity if he has acted “willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, 

in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.” Cranman, 792 So. 2d at 405. This principle 

means that “[s]tate-agent immunity[] does not provide immunity 

from liability for the commission of an intentional tort, but only for 

negligence in the exercise of judgment.” Gary, 867 So. 2d at 314 

(citing Ex parte Turner, 840 So. 2d 132, 136 (Ala. 2002)). 

The Alabama Supreme Court has also held that, when a 

plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of intentional defamation, the 

speaker is not entitled to state-agent immunity. Three such precedents are relevant here.

In Gary, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that a police chief was not entitled to police-agent immunity where he committed the intentional tort of defamation by circulating a letter that 

contained false statements about one of his lieutenants. See id.at

313–14. In doing so, the court recognized that “[p]eace-officer immunity, like [s]tate-agent immunity, does not provide immunity 

from liability for the commission of an intentional tort, but only for 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 30 of 32
21-13632 Opinion of the Court 31

negligence in the exercise of judgment.” Id. (citing Ex parte Turner, 

840 So.2d at 136).

Likewise, in Ex parte Pinkard, No. 1200658, ___ So. 3d ___, 

slip op. at 21 (Ala. May 27, 2022), the Alabama Supreme Court held 

that a deputy fire marshal was not entitled to state-agent immunity 

for the tort of defamation because the fire marshal allegedly 

“act[ed] willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his 

or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.” § 

36-1-12(d)(2). The court concluded that the plaintiff had “put forth 

evidence that [the agent] misrepresented his denials as a confession.” Id. at 24 Like the officials here, the agent supposedly defamed 

the plaintiff by claiming he had committed a crime by “falsely represent[ing] that [the plaintiff] had ‘admitted’ to starting [a] fire” that 

the agent determined was arson. Id. at 23. 

Similarly, in Slack v. Stream, the Alabama Supreme Court 

held that a university department head was not entitled to stateagent immunity in a defamation suit where the department head 

disseminated a letter that falsely accused the plaintiff, a professor, 

of plagiarism. 988 So. 2d 516, 531 (Ala. 2008). The court explained 

that the department head “acted willfully and maliciously in disseminating the letter of reprimand.” Id.

Turning back to this case, the district court held that the evidence taken in the light most favorable to Garcia and Revill established that Casey and Gilliland committed the tort of defamation.

The plaintiffs argue that the record further establishes that Casey 

and Gilliland’s “statements were made intentionally, or, at a 

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 31 of 32
32 Opinion of the Court 21-13632

minimum, it is a question of fact for a jury to decide if they were 

intentional.” We agree. Casey and Gilliland have not challenged 

the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs established a prima 

facie case of defamation, nor did they meaningfully argue that the 

plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence of intentionality. And, as 

far as intentionality goes, it is hard to see how the statements at

issue here are meaningfully different from the statements at issue 

in Gary, Pinkard, or Slack. Because state-agent immunity does not 

provide a defense against the intentional tort of defamation, the 

district court did not err in denying Casey and Gilliland summary 

judgment.

IV.

For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. The

action is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for Ashworth, Ratliff, Casey, and Gilliland on Garcia 

and Revill’s false arrest claims. On remand, the district court should

determine whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the defamation claims given our resolution of these federal claims.

USCA11 Case: 21-13632 Document: 104-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 32 of 32