Opinion ID: 1086983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deputy Melton

Text: Deputy Melton contends that Howard cannot show a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.5 After viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Howard, we disagree. Howard claims that Deputy Melton violated his Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable seizures by arresting him without probable cause. Grider, 618 F.3d at 1256 (“[I]t is well established that an arrest without probable cause is an unreasonable seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment.”). To receive qualified immunity, Deputy Melton need not have had actual probable cause for Howard’s arrest –– only arguable probable cause. Id. at 1257. Arguable probable cause exists if “reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendant[] could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). While 5 Deputy Melton has not contested whether Howard can satisfy the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, and any arguments on that issue are waived for purposes of this appeal. See Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1242 n.10. That does not mean, however, that Deputy Melton is barred from contesting that issue in further proceedings. 11 Case: 12-15687 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 Page: 12 of 15 the qualified immunity standard allows ample room for mistaken judgments, it does not protect “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229, 112 S.Ct. 534, 537 (1991) (quotation marks omitted). For example an officer who unreasonably and recklessly disregards evidence that exonerates a suspect cannot reasonably believe that probable cause exists. See Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1233; see also Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d 1069, 1083–84 (11th Cir. 2003) (reversing the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity where factual questions existed as to whether police officers filed a recklessly false application for an arrest warrant). In deciding that Deputy Melton did not have arguable probable cause for Howard’s arrest, we find our decision in Kingsland to be instructive. In that case, several police officers responded to a car wreck involving another officer and Misty Kingsland. Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1223. Once on the scene, the officers ignored Kingsland and her assertion that the police officer caused the wreck. Id. Accepting instead their colleague’s statement that Kingsland was at fault, the arriving officer never bothered to listen to Kingsland’s side of the story. Id. She was charged with driving under the influence and accused of causing the wreck. Id. at 1225. Kingsland had suffered a head injury in the wreck, and the charges against her proved baseless and were later dismissed. Id. Kingsland filed a lawsuit against the arresting officers alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. Id. In 12 Case: 12-15687 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 Page: 13 of 15 reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we concluded that Kingsland had raised a question of fact about whether, among other things, the arresting officers had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and had ignored certain facts within their knowledge. Id. at 1231. Though we recognized that “a police officer is not required to explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an arrest,” we held that “an officer may not choose to ignore information that has been offered to him or her, such as Kingsland’s assertions that [the police officer] ran the red light.” Id. at 1229. “Nor may the officer conduct an investigation in a biased fashion or elect not to obtain easily discoverable facts, such as . . . whether witnesses were available to attest to who was at fault in the accident.” Id. Because the officers failed to take even the most basic investigatory steps, we concluded that the question of arguable probable cause could not be decided at the summary judgment stage. Id. at 1232–33 Like the officers in Kingsland, Deputy Melton concedes that he made little or no attempt to investigate the incident between Deputy Highsmith and Howard. He ignored Howard’s version of events and talked to no witnesses, although court records reveal that at least two people who were readily available could have corroborated Howard’s story. The only attention he gave to the investigation was to Deputy Highsmith’s side of the story, as found in his brief incident report. 13 Case: 12-15687 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 Page: 14 of 15 Because Deputy Melton neglected to talk to Deputy Highsmith, however, even that attention appears to have been cursory. Deputy Melton has not established, for purposes of qualified immunity, that he conducted a reasonable investigation before charging Howard with battery on a law enforcement officer. Because a fact question remains about whether Deputy Melton had arguable probable cause to arrest Howard, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.