Opinion ID: 579479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants Davis' and Moody's Defense of Qualified Immunity

Text: 21 There is no dispute as to the facts in the possession of Detective Davis and Major Moody at the time of the issuance of the search warrants. Thus, if the facts as known to them constituted arguable probable cause, then summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is proper. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1506 (11th Cir.1990). 22 The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded 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. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). This circuit follows a two-step analysis: 23 1. The defendant public official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred. Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988). The trial court found that the police officers were within their discretionary authority; neither party disputes this conclusion. 24 2. Once the defendant public official satisfies his burden of moving forward with the evidence, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show lack of good faith on the defendant's part. This burden is met by proof demonstrating that the defendant public official's actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Id. at 1564. 25 In order for a right to be clearly established and defeat an official's claim to qualified immunity, 26 [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent. 27 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Indubitably, an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and establishes a cause of action under section 1983. See Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d at 1504. The question here is whether the police officers had arguable probable cause, or whether reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable cause existed. Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 579 (11th Cir.1990). In other words, actual probable cause is not necessary for an arrest to be objectively reasonable. Id. As the Supreme Court held in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), [o]nly where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable will the shield of immunity be lost. Id. at 344-45, 106 S.Ct. at 1098 (citation omitted). We therefore review the evidence known to Davis and Moody with an eye to whether any reasonable officer would have sought arrest and search warrants based on that information. 28 The essence of plaintiffs' complaint is that Detective Davis relied on stale evidence and failed to advise the court issuing the warrant that other doctors had examined the children and had not concluded that they had been abused. The district court held that Moody and Davis were not entitled to qualified immunity because of the ambiguous nature of the corroborating evidence, the ignorance of substantial exculpatory information by the defendants, and the staleness, and consequent suspect veracity, of the allegations in the instant case. Lowe v. Aldridge, No. 1:88-cv-2087-JTC (N.D.Ga.), March 1, 1991, at 14. 6 Even by the district court's own account of the facts, however, there was no exculpatory evidence, only conflicting evidence by a number of qualified doctors as to whether or not there was physical evidence of sexual abuse. Only Dr. Manis, who had limited experience with child sexual abuse victims, came to the conclusion that no abuse had occurred. In order to establish probable cause, Detective Davis did not need to prove guilt or even to establish a prima facie case; he was required to show only that he had reason to believe that a crime had been committed and that evidence would be found at the premises to be searched. See Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d at 578-79. This standard was more than satisfied by the evidence presented to the Magistrate and the existence of a dissenting opinion does not negate the probativeness of the incriminating evidence. 29 Detective Davis and Major Moody prepared an affidavit in support of arrest and search warrants based on the repeated, detailed, and explicit statements of three children that they had been ritualistically sexually abused by their father, grandmother, and great-aunt. There is no basis for holding that police officers cannot depend on the uncorroborated evidence of a child victim of sexual abuse for the request for a warrant. On the contrary, this court recently refused to hold police defendants liable for placing a reasonable amount of trust in the truth of the statements of an injured and likely traumatized four-year-old who named her father as her rapist. See Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d at 1506. The district court correctly noted that the Marx court did not decide whether the uncorroborated statements of a four-year-old rape victim would constitute probable cause, but neither did the Marx court rule out a valid warrant based on such evidence alone. 30 Plaintiffs insist that Detective Davis relied on unqualified experts in determining that probable cause for search warrants existed. Plaintiffs have not, however, shown that Aldridge was unqualified, that Davis had reason to believe that she was unqualified, or that they have any basis for questioning Aldridge's competence other than that she came to a conclusion that they regarded as unfounded. None of these claims establishes lack of good faith or probable cause in the procurement of a search warrant. 31 Defendants argue that, based upon studies of child sexual abuse, the way the children related their accounts was very much in keeping with what was expected of them. The children's initial denial that any abuse occurred is not unusual, nor is the fact that the physical evidence was not dramatic. 7 Thus, the children's early reticence does not militate against a conclusion that the state officials acted with probable cause. 32 Plaintiffs also highlight the fact that the Lowes were enmeshed in a bitter divorce and custody battle. This contention carries little weight in the analysis. First, Defendant Aldridge presented substantial evidence that allegations of abuse leveled during divorce cannot be ignored merely because they are brought up in the heat of battle. 8 Second, in this case, Victoria Lowe initiated divorce proceedings because she feared that her husband was sexually abusing Alicia. 33 Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially false misstatements in the affidavit prepared for the search warrant. It appears that Detective Davis mistakenly attributed rectal scarring found on Darrell to have been found on Gary, but plaintiffs have produced no proof of any bad faith or misconduct on the part of the defendants in the reporting of the evidence in their possession. 9 34 In short, we find that it was not objectively unreasonable for Detective Davis and Major Moody to procure a search warrant based on the evidence in their possession. Nor have we found any evidence of bad faith on the part of either Davis or Moody in the request for the search warrant. 35 The district court erred in concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the objective reasonableness of defendants Davis' and Moody's actions. We therefore hold that defendants had arguable probable cause for their actions and consequently were entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 liability.