Opinion ID: 69341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wood’s Issues

Text: Wood contends that because the district court granted summary judgment in favor of his superior officers, who accepted Wood’s story that Howell had a firearm, Wood is also entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Porath and Burdick accepted Wood’s account of the firearm charge in good faith. The court determined there was no evidence that those defendants disbelieved Wood or that they were trying to cover up any wrongdoing related to the pepper spraying. It found no evidence that Porath and Burdick would want to protect Wood and Dougan to the detriment of another deputy, Howell. The court concluded that based on all the facts reasonably available to Porath and Burdick, they had arguable probable cause to arrest Howell. The district court also found, however, that Howell did not possess a gun and that no witness who would have been in a position to see a gun believed that Howell had one. Courtney Spence, who owned the home where the party was being held, told Wood that no one had a gun. The court found that Wood’s actions—holstering his gun and walking away from the patio and back toward the other officers—were inconsistent with Wood actually believing that he had just 8 faced a deadly force encounter with an armed man. There was evidence that Wood did not actually believe Howell had a gun, and the district court found a genuine issue of material fact about whether Wood had lied about it. It reached that conclusion regardless of what Porath and Burdick reasonably believed about what Wood had told them. One can reasonably believe statements that turn out to have been false. The district court’s finding that Porath and Burdick reasonably relied on Wood’s statement that Howell had a gun does not establish that Wood had arguable probable cause to arrest Howell for waving a gun. Porath and Burdick did not tell Wood that Howell had a gun, and they did not confirm any suspicions Wood had about whether Howell had one. Instead, it was the other way around. They relied on Wood’s statement to them that Howell had a gun.2 Wood has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity just because Porath and Burdick are. 2 Wood argues that “there is a legal question as to whether [he] could rely on his own observations, and another person’s observations, in order to find arguable probable cause for his arrest.” Br. of Appellants at 19. Wood has not presented evidence that he relied on Porath and Burdick’s observations. Instead, all of the evidence was that Porath and Burdick relied on what Wood told them. The district court found: “Here, Sgt. Porath and Lt. Burdick, upon hearing the account of a fellow officer, determined that probable cause existed for an arrest. They did not, after hearing Deputy Wood’s account, selectively gather information that would confirm probable cause for an arrest.” See R:43 at 23. The district court’s finding about the arguable probable cause supporting Porath and Burdick’s decision to arrest Howell does not entitle Wood to qualified immunity. 9 In the alternative, Wood contends that, regardless of the gun issue, he had probable cause to arrest Howell based on a violation of the county noise ordinance. Wood correctly observes that “the validity of an arrest does not turn on the offense announced by the officer at the time of the arrest.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1195–96 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “when an officer makes an arrest, which is properly supported by probable cause to arrest for a certain offense, neither his subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the wrong offense vitiates the arrest.” Id. at 1196 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). According to Wood, the district court found that he had probable cause to arrest Howell based on a violation of the county noise ordinance. In reality, the district court did not actually find that. Instead, the court stated: “As neither side fully addressed the issue, we only remark that it is likely that Deputy Dougan could have arrested Deputy Howell if there was probable cause that he violated the noise ordinance.” R:43 at 13 n.2. First, the district court referred to Dougan and not to Wood. Second, the district court said “if.” Third, the district court declined to rule on the issue because the parties had not properly raised it. We will not address on appeal arguments that were not raised in the district court. See Johnson v. United States, 340 F.3d 1219, 1228 n.8 (11th Cir.2003). Therefore, Wood is not 10 entitled to have the district court’s denial of qualified immunity reversed on that ground. We express no opinion, however, about whether Wood might be entitled to qualified immunity if he does properly raise and argue this issue before the district court in a new motion for summary judgment.