Opinion ID: 77445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deputy Bostic's Discretionary Authority

Text: 34 Gray argues that Deputy Bostic was not acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he detained and handcuffed Gray. To establish that the challenged actions were within the scope of his discretionary authority, a defendant must show that those actions were (1) undertaken pursuant to the performance of his duties, and (2) within the scope of his authority. Harbert Int'l v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir.1998). To that end, a court must ask whether the act complained of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within, or reasonably related to, the outer perimeter of an official's discretionary duties. Id. (quotation marks omitted). 35 Although our prior opinion concluding that Deputy Bostic was acting within his discretionary authority was at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage and was based on merely the allegations in the complaint, there is no evidence at the summary judgment stage that changes our conclusion. Deputy Bostic as an SRO, was charged with the responsibility to investigate criminal activity that might be taking place at Holt Elementary School. As part of that responsibility, Deputy Bostic's duties included, under the right circumstances, detaining and questioning students and possibly arresting and handcuffing them. The fact that the right circumstances (for detention or handcuffing) may not have been present in this case is irrelevant to our inquiry. See id. (explaining that the inquiry is not whether it was within the defendant's authority to commit the allegedly illegal act because [f]ramed that way, the inquiry is no more than an `untenable' tautology). 36 Gray stresses that SROs were not supposed to discipline students and that Deputy Bostic admitted in his interrogatory responses that his reasons for detaining and handcuffing Gray were to impress upon her the serious nature of committing crimes that can lead to arrest, detention or incarceration and to help persuade her to rid herself of her disrespectful attitude. We note, however, that it is also clear from Deputy Bostic's interrogatory responses that he believed Gray had committed a misdemeanor when she threatened her teacher and that Deputy Bostic detained her to discuss the incident with her. Therefore, we conclude that Deputy Bostic's actions were within his discretionary duties and turn to whether his actions were unconstitutional.