Court Opinion

ID: 9881497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 21:00:49.958516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:15:26.349345
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-10670       Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 1 of 55

                                                          [PUBLISH]
                                        In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eleventh Circuit

                             ____________________

                                      No. 21-10670
                             ____________________

        MARQUES A. JOHNSON,
                                                           Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        CHRIS NOCCO,
        in his oﬃcial capacity as Sheriﬀ, Pasco County, Florida,

                                                                   Defendant,

        JAMES DUNN,
        in his individual capacity,

                                                        Defendant-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 10/02/2023        Page: 2 of 55

        2                         Opinion of the Court                      21-10670

                                ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01370-TPB-JSS
                             ____________________

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
        TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:
               This appeal presents two questions. The ﬁrst is whether the
        Fourth Amendment precluded a law enforcement oﬃcer—who
        had stopped a vehicle for a traﬃc violation—from asking a passen-
        ger in the vehicle to identify himself unless the oﬃcer had reason
        to suspect that the passenger had committed, was in the process of
        committing, or was likely to commit a criminal oﬀense. The sec-
        ond question is whether binding precedent 1 clearly established, at
        the time relevant here, that an oﬃcer could not ask a passenger to
        identify himself absent this reasonable suspicion. The District
        Court answered both questions in the aﬃrmative and accordingly
        denied the oﬃcer’s motion to dismiss the passenger’s claim pursu-
        ant to the doctrine of qualiﬁed immunity.

        1 Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999, 1013 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Our Court looks only

        to binding precedent—cases from the United States Supreme Court, the Elev-
        enth Circuit, and the highest court of the state under which the claim arose—
        to determine whether the right in question was clearly established at the time
        of the violation.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 3 of 55

        21-10670                   Opinion of the Court                                 3

               The oﬃcer appeals the District Court’s decisions.2 Conclud-
        ing that the District Court erred in denying the oﬃcer’s motion to
        dismiss the passenger’s claim, we reverse.
               Our discussion proceeds as follows. Part I sets out the pas-
        senger’s claim under the Fourth Amendment (and relatedly under
        the Fourteenth Amendment) and the District Court’s reasons for
        denying the oﬃcer’s motion to dismiss the claim. Part II reviews
        Supreme Court precedent concerning whether it is reasonable un-
        der the Fourth Amendment for an oﬃcer, during a traﬃc stop, to
        ask the vehicles occupants—the driver and passengers alike—to
        exit the vehicle. Part III addresses how that precedent informs the
        answer to the question here—whether an oﬃcer may ask a passen-
        ger for identiﬁcation absent a reasonable suspicion that the passen-
        ger has committed, is committing, or is likely to commit a criminal
        oﬀense. Part IV addresses whether the oﬃcer here lacked arguable
        probable cause to arrest the passenger under Florida Statute
        § 843.02 for refusing to comply with the oﬃcer’s demand that he
        identify himself. Part V concludes.

        2 We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Mitchell

        v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2817 (1985) (“[A] district court’s
        denial of a claim of qualiﬁed immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue
        of law, is an appealable ‘ﬁnal decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291
        notwithstanding the absence of a ﬁnal judgment.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670          Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023           Page: 4 of 55

        4                           Opinion of the Court                          21-10670

                                                 I.
                                                 A.
               The oﬃcer is James Dunn—a Pasco County, Florida Sher-
        riﬀ’s Oﬃce deputy. Chris Nocco, the Pasco County Sheriﬀ, is a
        codefendant with Dunn in the case below. The passenger is
        Marques A. Johnson. Johnson’s initial complaint in this case con-
        sisted of twelve counts. Johnson’s ﬁrst amended complaint, the
        complaint at hand, contains ten counts. Count I of the amended
        complaint, which replicates verbatim Count I of the initial com-
        plaint, was brought against Dunn in his individual capacity and is
        the only count before us in this appeal. 3
               Count I seeks damages against Dunn under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 4
        for violating Johnson’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

        3 The remaining nine counts of the amended complaint contain the following

        claims: Count II, against Nocco in his oﬃcial capacity, alleging the constitu-
        tional claims asserted against Dunn in Count I; Count III, a common law claim
        against Nocco for negligence in training Dunn and others; Count IV, a com-
        mon law claim against Nocco for negligence in supervising Dunn and others;
        Count V, a common law claim against Dunn for malicious prosecution; Count
        VI, a common law claim against Dunn for intentional inﬂiction of emotional
        distress; Counts VII and VIII, common law claims against Dunn and Nocco
        respectively for battery; Counts IX and X, common law claims against Dunn
        and Nocco respectively for false imprisonment.
        4 Section 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights) states in relevant part:

                Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, reg-
                ulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects . . . any cit-
                izen of the United States or other person within the jurisdic-
                tion thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
USCA11 Case: 21-10670          Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023        Page: 5 of 55

        21-10670                    Opinion of the Court                                5

        on August 2, 2018, in Pasco County, Florida. Count I alleges that
        Dunn, accompanied by Deputies Christopher Ramos and Mark
        Pini, stopped a motor vehicle towing a motorcycle on a trailer be-
        cause the trailer’s license tag was obscured. 5 This vehicle was
        driven by Johnson’s father (the “driver”). Dunn approached the
        front passenger side of the vehicle and obtained the driver’s driver’s
        license and vehicular registration. Next, he asked Johnson, seated
        in the front passenger seat (another passenger was in the back seat),
        if he “had his ‘ID on him.’” Johnson replied that he was “merely a
        passenger in the vehicle and was not required to identify himself.”
        Dunn responded that “under Florida law he was required to iden-
        tify himself and that if he did not identify himself, [Dunn] would
        ‘pull him out and he would go to jail for resisting.’” A Sheriﬀ’s Of-
        ﬁce “supervisor informed Deputy Dunn that he should arrest
        [Johnson]” for refusing to identify himself. Dunn accordingly
        placed Johnson “under arrest for resisting without violence” in vi-
        olation of Florida Statute § 843.02. 6

                immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be lia-
                ble to the party injured in an action at law . . . for redress[.]
        42 U.S.C. § 1983.
        5 See Fla. Stat. § 316.605(1) (Licensing of vehicles).

        6 Fla. Stat. § 843.02 (Resisting officer without violence to his or her person)

        states: “Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer . . . in the lawful
        execution of any legal duty . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first
        degree.”
              As noted in the above text, Johnson was arrested on August 2, 2018.
        He moved the County Court for Pasco County to dismiss the § 843.02 charge,
USCA11 Case: 21-10670          Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 6 of 55

        6                           Opinion of the Court                  21-10670

               Count I is styled “Fourth Amendment Violation – False Ar-
        rest” and asserts two causes of action: a claim that Deputy Dunn’s
        demand that Johnson identify himself amounted to an unreasona-
        ble seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment7 and a claim that
        Dunn arrested Johnson without probable cause in violation of the
        Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth
        Amendment claim is based on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,
        88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), and its progeny. The due process claim is that
        Dunn lacked probable cause to arrest Johnson for violating
        § 843.02.
               Dunn’s request that Johnson identify himself was allegedly
        unreasonable because at the specific moment Dunn encountered
        Johnson he was, in effect, conducting a Terry stop 8 and could not
        demand that Johnson identify himself without “any specific basis
        for believing he [was] involved in criminal activity.” Count I cites
        Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52–53, 99 S. Ct, 2637, 2641 (1979), a
        Terry progeny, in support of the claim. Moreover, Dunn could not
        “arrest [Johnson] for failure to identify himself if the request for
        identification [was] not related to the circumstances justifying the

        and on November 9, 2018, the County Court heard the motion and granted it.
        The State moved the Court for reconsideration, and the Court denied the mo-
        tion on November 21, 2018. Johnson brought this lawsuit on June 15, 2020.
        7 The Fourth Amendment is applicable to the states and local government

        through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio,
        367 U.S. 643, 659, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1694 (1961).
        8 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 7 of 55

        21-10670               Opinion of the Court                         7

        stop,” according to the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist.
        Ct., 542 U.S. 177, 188, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 2459 (2004). The due process
        claim is that Johnson expressed his refusal to identify himself in
        “mere words.” Dunn therefore lacked probable cause to arrest
        Johnson for resisting an officer without violence in violation of
        § 843.02.
                Dunn moved to dismiss Count I of both the initial and
        amended complaints on the ground that the doctrine of qualified
        immunity immunized him from suit. Dunn’s second motion took
        issue with the cases Count I relies on to support its Fourth Amend-
        ment claim, namely Terry, Hiibel, and Brown. Dunn argued that
        those cases did not support Count I’s allegation that he could not
        ask Johnson to identify himself unless he reasonably suspected that
        Johnson had committed, was in the process of committing, or was
        likely to commit a criminal offense. He argued that, if anything,
        those cases supported his position—that Florida law permitted him
        to ask Johnson to identify himself. Dunn cited Arizona v. Johnson,
        555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), and Pennsylvania v. Mimms,
        434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330 (1992), as recognizing, in the interest of
        officer safety, an officer’s need to question the occupants of vehi-
        cles stopped for traffic violations.
                                         B.
              The District Court ruled on Dunn’s motion to dismiss
        Count I in two orders: one addressed the suﬃciency of Count I of
        Johnson’s initial complaint; the other addressed the suﬃciency of
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023          Page: 8 of 55

        8                          Opinion of the Court                         21-10670

        Count I of the amended complaint.9 For eﬃciency, we treat the
        two orders as one.
                The District Court held that Dunn was entitled to assert the
        qualiﬁed immunity defense because, in conducting the traﬃc stop,
        he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority as a Sher-
        iﬀ’s deputy. 10 To overcome this defense, Johnson had to show
        (1) that Count I’s allegations established that Dunn violated his
        Fourth Amendment right not to be asked to identify himself, and
        if so, (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the viola-
        tion. Exercising its discretion under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.

        9 The second order, which is very brief, essentially adopted the first order’s

        analysis regarding Count I’s sufficiency.
        10 A government official sued under a theory of direct liability, may “seek to

        have the complaint dismissed on qualified immunity grounds prior to discov-
        ery, based solely on the allegations in the pleadings.” See Holloman ex. rel. Hol-
        loman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004).
                To . . . be potentially eligible for . . . judgment due to qualiﬁed
                immunity, the oﬃcial must have been engaged in a “discretion-
                ary function” when he performed the acts of which the plain-
                tiﬀ complains. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818,
                102 S. Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982) (holding that
                qualiﬁed immunity extends to “government oﬃcials perform-
                ing discretionary functions”). It is the burden of the govern-
                mental oﬃcial to make this showing. Storck v. City of Coral
                Springs, 354 F.3d 1307, 1314 (2003) (“Under qualiﬁed immunity
                analysis, the public oﬃcial must ﬁrst prove that he was acting
                within the scope of his discretionary authority when the alleg-
                edly unconstitutional acts took place.” (emphasis added)).
        Id. at 1263–64.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670          Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 9 of 55

        21-10670                   Opinion of the Court                                   9

        223, 236, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 (2009), as to which showing it should
        address ﬁrst, the Court addressed the two showings in order.
                The District Court first found that Dunn had probable cause
        to initiate the traffic stop and a “valid basis to briefly detain both
        Plaintiff and his father who was driving the vehicle. See, e.g., John-
        son, 555 U.S. at 333 (temporary detention of driver and passengers
        during traffic stop remains reasonable for duration of the stop).”
        Dunn also had “a valid basis to require the driver to provide iden-
        tification and vehicle registration.” But he did not have “a valid
        basis to also require a passenger, such as Plaintiff, to provide iden-
        tification, absent a reasonable suspicion that the passenger had
        committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal
        offense.” The Court supported that statement by citing Florida
        Statute § 901.151(2) 11 and three U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In
        a parenthetical citation to this statute, the District Court said an

        11 Section 901.151(2), Florida’s “Stop and Frisk Law,” states in relevant part:

                Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encoun-
                ters any person under circumstances which reasonably indi-
                cate that such person has committed, is committing, or is
                about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state
                or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the
                officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of
                ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained
                and the circumstances surrounding the person's presence
                abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had
                committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crimi-
                nal offense.
        Fla. Stat. § 901.151(2).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023          Page: 10 of 55

        10                          Opinion of the Court                        21-10670

        “officer may detain [a] person for purpose of ascertaining identity
        when [the] officer reasonably believes [the] person has committed,
        is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” The main Supreme
        Court decisions the District Court cited were Hiibel 12 and Brown v.
        Texas. 13
               Referring to § 901.151(2), the District Court acknowledged
        that the “Florida courts had not speciﬁcally held that law enforce-
        ment oﬃcers may require [a] passenger[] to provide identiﬁcation
        during traﬃc stops absent a reasonable suspicion that the passenger
        had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crimi-
        nal oﬀense.” The District Court concluded that “the ultimate
        source of authority on this issue is the Fourth Amendment as in-
        terpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, not a speciﬁc provision of
        Florida law.” 14

        12 This parenthetical followed the Hiibel citation: “an officer may not arrest an

        individual for failing to identify himself if the request for identification is not
        reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”
        13 This parenthetical followed the Brown citation: “law enforcement cannot

        stop and demand identification from individual without a specific basis for be-
        lieving he is involved in criminal activity.”
               The Court cited other decisions in reaching it decision to deny Dunn’s
        motion to dismiss, but Hiibel and Brown were the Court’s principal authorities.
        14 The District Court added: “In 1982, the Florida Constitution was amended

        to provide that Florida courts would follow the United States Supreme Court’s
        decisions in addressing search and seizure issues. See Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d
        1256, 1258 (Fla. 1993).” ’ State v. Jacoby, 907 So. 2d 676, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).”
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 11 of 55

        21-10670               Opinion of the Court                         11

              The District Court concluded its analysis of Johnson’s
        Fourth Amendment and False Arrest claims:
              Plaintiff had a legal right to refuse to provide his iden-
              tification to Deputy Dunn. As such, Deputy Dunn had
              neither actual probable cause nor arguable probable cause
              to arrest Plaintiff [for violating § 843.02]. The Court
              further finds that based on the Fourth Amendment it-
              self and the case law discussed, the law was clearly es-
              tablished at the time of the arrest. Deputy Dunn is
              not entitled to qualified immunity, and the motion to
              dismiss is denied as to this ground.
        (emphasis added). An inference reasonably drawn from the em-
        phasized language is that if Johnson did not have a legal right to
        refuse Dunn’s command that he identify himself, Dunn had at least
        arguable probable cause to arrest him under § 843.02 for refusing
        to do so. Another inference reasonably drawn from the District
        Court’s discussion about § 901.151(2) is that, if Johnson did not
        have the right to refuse Dunn’s command, the statute’s language—
        “had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crim-
        inal offense”—would be inoperative here.
                                         II.
                                         A.
                Deputy Dunn stopped the Johnson vehicle because he had
        probable cause to believe the driver had committed a traﬃc viola-
        tion: its trailer’s license tag was obscured. The stop constituted a
        Fourth Amendment seizure and detention of the vehicle’s
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 12 of 55

        12                         Opinion of the Court                        21-10670

        occupants—the driver and two passengers—since they were not
        free to exit the vehicle or continue on their journey.15 “[A] passen-
        ger is seized, just as the driver is, ‘from the moment [a car stopped
        by the police comes] to a halt on the side of the road.’” Johnson,
        555 U.S. at 332, 129 S. Ct. at 787 (second alteration in original)
        (quoting Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 263, 127 S. Ct. 2400,
        2410 (2007)).
                The traﬃc stop here was analogous to a Terry stop. “[I]n a
        traﬃc-stop setting, the ﬁrst Terry condition—a lawful investigatory
        stop—is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automo-
        bile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.”
        Id. at 327, 129 S. Ct. at 784. Here, it was lawful for Deputy Dunn
        to stop the vehicle and detain its occupants for the violation of a
        Florida Statute regulating the “licensing of vehicles.” Fla. Stat.
        § 316.605(1). 16 Moreover, the occupants would expect the deten-
        tion to continue, and remain reasonable, for the duration of the
        stop; they would be free to leave when Dunn had no further need
        to control the scene. See Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333, 129 S. Ct. at 788
        (“Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to

        15 As noted, Dunn was aided by Deputies Ramos and Pini, who were with

        Dunn when he made the stop, and their supervisor.
        16 “[A]n officer making a [traffic] stop must have ‘a particularized and objective

        basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.’ Even minor traf-
        fic violations qualify as criminal activity.” United States v. Campbell,
        26 F.4th 860, 880 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting Navarette v. California,
        572 U.S. 393, 396, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (2014)) (other citations omitted), cert.
        denied, 143 S. Ct. 95, 214 L.Ed.2d 19 (2022).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023       Page: 13 of 55

        21-10670                Opinion of the Court                           13

        control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are
        free to leave.” (citing Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 258, 127 S. Ct. at 2407)).
               Deputy Dunn’s “mission” was “to address the traﬃc viola-
        tion that warranted the stop” and to “attend to related safety con-
        cerns.” See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S. Ct.
        1609, 1614 (2015). While carrying out his mission, Dunn would
        have been mindful of the safety risk that oﬃcers face when con-
        ducting traﬃc stops. The Supreme Court recognized such danger
        in Johnson:
               [T]raﬃc stops are “especially fraught with danger to
               police oﬃcers.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047,
               103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983). “‘The risk of harm to both the
               police and the occupants [of a stopped vehicle] is min-
               imized . . . if the oﬃcers routinely exercise unques-
               tioned command of the situation.’” Maryland v. Wil-
               son, 519 U.S. 408, 414, 117 S. Ct. 882 (1997) (quoting
               Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702–[]03, 101 S. Ct.
               2587 (1981)).
        555 U.S. at 330, 129 S. Ct. at 786 (second alteration in original).
                Dunn exercised command of the seizure. He made the “or-
        dinary inquiries incident to [the traﬃc] stop.” See Rodriguez, 575
        U.S. at 355, 135 S. Ct. at 1615 (alteration in original) (quoting Illinois
        v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408, 125 S. Ct. 834, 837 (2005)). Dunn asked
        the driver for his driver’s license and vehicle registration, and he
        complied. Dunn could have asked any of the occupants about their
        travel plans and destinations. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 885 (en banc)
USCA11 Case: 21-10670        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023        Page: 14 of 55

        14                        Opinion of the Court                       21-10670

        (collecting cases) (“Generally speaking, questions about travel
        plans are ordinary inquiries incident to a traﬃc stop.”).
               Deputy Dunn’s mission focused on the traﬃc violation that
        warranted the stop and related safety concerns. Even if Dunn’s ex-
        changes with the driver and Johnson were focused exclusively on
        the reason for the stop and safety, any additional exchange would
        not be unreasonable unless it measurably extended the duration of
        the stop. Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333, 129 S. Ct. at 788 (citation omitted)
        (“An oﬃcer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justiﬁcation for
        the traﬃc stop . . . do not convert the encounter into something
        other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not meas-
        urably extend the duration of the stop.”).17
                                              B.
               In carrying out his mission, could Deputy Dunn ask the
        driver to step out of the vehicle? 18
               In Mimms, the Supreme Court considered whether request-
        ing a driver to get out of his vehicle was reasonable under the
        Fourth Amendment. 434 U.S. at 108–13, 98 S. Ct. at 332–35. Given
        that “the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment [is] the rea-
        sonableness in all the circumstances of the [oﬃcer’s] invasion of

        17 Count I ofthe amended complaint does not allege that Dunn’s conduct
        measurably extended the duration of the stop.
        18 Deputy Pini ordered the vehicle’s occupants to exit the vehicle so he and his

        dog could conduct a narcotics sniff. The question I pose in the above text is
        whether, before the narcotics sniff, Dunn could have ordered the driver to exit
        the vehicle while Dunn engaged in the inquiries called for by the stop.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 15 of 55

        21-10670                Opinion of the Court                         15

        [the driver’s] personal security[,]” Terry, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S. Ct. at
        1878–79, the Court in Mimms held that the “[r]easonableness [of
        the oﬃcer’s request] depends ‘on a balance between the public in-
        terest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbi-
        trary interference by law oﬃcers.’” 434 U.S. at 109, 98 S. Ct. at 332
        (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S. Ct.
        2574, 2579 (1975)).
              In distinguishing its inquiry from that in Terry, the Mimms
        Court explained:
               [T]here is no question about the propriety of the ini-
               tial restrictions on [Mimms’s] freedom of movement.
               [Mimms] was driving an automobile with expired li-
               cense tags in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Ve-
               hicle Code. . . . [The Court] need presently deal only
               with the narrow question of whether the order to get
               out of the car, issued after the driver was lawfully de-
               tained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the
               Fourth Amendment. This inquiry must therefore fo-
               cus not on the intrusion resulting from the request to
               stop the vehicle . . . but on the incremental intrusion
               resulting from the request to get out of the car once
               the vehicle was lawfully stopped.
        Id. (footnote omitted).
               In striking the balance described in Brignoni-Ponce, the
        Mimms Court “weigh[ed] the intrusion into [Mimms’s] personal lib-
        erty occasioned not by the initial stop of the vehicle, which was
        admittedly justiﬁed [as part of the oﬃcer’s mission], but by the or-
        der to get out of the car.” Id. at 111, 98 S. Ct. at 333. The Court
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 16 of 55

        16                      Opinion of the Court                  21-10670

        concluded that the additional intrusion was “de minimis” and ac-
        cordingly held that the oﬃcer’s order was reasonable. Id. at 111, 98
        S. Ct. 333. “[I]t hardly rises to the level of a ‘petty indignity.’” Id.
        (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17, 88 S. Ct. at 1877).
               The answer to the question posed above is that Deputy
        Dunn could have asked the driver to step out of his vehicle—not as
        part of Dunn’s mission, but as an additional, incremental, and rea-
        sonable intrusion.
                                          C.
                In carrying out his mission, could Deputy Dunn have asked
        a passenger—here, Johnson—to step out of the vehicle? Speciﬁ-
        cally, would the Mimms rationale and holding apply to a passenger?
               In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S. Ct. 882 (1997), the
        Supreme Court decided that it does. Ordering a passenger to exit
        the vehicle did not appear to be part of the oﬃcer’s mission, so, as
        before, the Wilson Court struck the same balance described in
        Brignoni-Ponce. In doing so, it recalled how it weighed the public’s
        interest and the driver’s personal liberty in Mimms:
               On the public interest side of the balance, we noted
               that the State “freely concede[d]” that there had been
               nothing unusual or suspicious to justify ordering
               Mimms out of the car, but that it was the oﬃcer’s
               “practice to order all drivers [stopped in traﬃc stops]
               out of their vehicles as a matter of course” as a “pre-
               cautionary measure” to protect the oﬃcer’s safety.
               We thought it “too plain for argument” that this
USCA11 Case: 21-10670        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 17 of 55

        21-10670                   Opinion of the Court                               17

                justiﬁcation—oﬃcer safety—was “both legitimate
                and weighty.”[19]
                   On the other side of the balance, we considered
                the intrusion into the driver’s liberty occasioned by
                the oﬃcer’s ordering him out of the car. Noting that
                the driver’s car was already validly stopped for a traﬃc
                infraction, we deemed the additional intrusion of
                asking him to step outside his car “de minimis.” Ac-
                cordingly, we concluded that “once a motor vehicle
                has been lawfully detained for a traﬃc violation, the
                police oﬃcers may order the driver to get out of the
                vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s
                proscription of unreasonable seizures.”[20]
        Id. at 412, 117 S. Ct. at 885 (ﬁrst and second alterations in original)
        (citations omitted).
             The Wilson Court next moved to the issue then before it:
        whether Mimms’s reasonableness holding applied to passengers as

        19 After making that statement, the Mimms Court added this regarding the pub-

        lic interest: “Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers
        take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.” 434 U.S. at 110, 98
        S. Ct. at 333 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 23, 88 S. Ct.
        at 1881). “And we have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting
        an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile.” Id.
        20 The Mimms Court added that requiring the driver to exit his vehicle was

        “not a ‘serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person[.]’” 434 U.S. at 111,
        98 S. Ct. at 333 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17, 88 S. Ct. at 1877). According to
        the Mimms Court, “[w]hat is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail
        when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 18 of 55

        18                    Opinion of the Court                  21-10670

        well as drivers. The Court struck a balance between the public’s
        and the passenger’s respective interests:
              On the public interest side of the balance, the same
              weighty interest in oﬃcer safety is present regardless
              of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver
              or passenger. Regrettably, traﬃc stops may be dan-
              gerous encounters. In 1994 alone, there were 5,762
              oﬃcer assaults and 11 oﬃcers killed during traﬃc
              pursuits and stops. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
              Uniform Crime Reports: Law Enforcement Oﬃcers
              Killed and Assaulted 71, 33 (1994). In the case of pas-
              sengers, the danger of the oﬃcer’s standing in the
              path of oncoming traﬃc would not be present except
              in the case of a passenger in the left rear seat, but the
              fact that there is more than one occupant of the vehi-
              cle increases the possible sources of harm to the of-
              ﬁcer.
                  On the personal liberty side of the balance, the
              case for the passengers is in one sense stronger than
              that for the driver. There is probable cause to believe
              that the driver has committed a minor vehicular of-
              fense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain the
              passengers. But as a practical matter, the passengers
              are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehi-
              cle. The only change in their circumstances which
              will result from ordering them out of the car is that
              they will be outside of, rather than inside of, the
              stopped car. Outside the car, the passengers will be
              denied access to any possible weapon that might be
              concealed in the interior of the passenger
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 19 of 55

        21-10670                Opinion of the Court                         19

               compartment. It would seem that the possibility of a
               violent encounter stems not from the ordinary reac-
               tion of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation,
               but from the fact that evidence of a more serious
               crime might be uncovered during the stop. And the
               motivation of a passenger to employ violence to pre-
               vent apprehension of such a crime is every bit as great
               as that of the driver.
        Id. at 413–14, 137 S. Ct. at 885–86 (footnotes omitted). On balance,
        the Wilson Court concluded that the public’s interest in oﬃcer
        safety had greater weight than the passenger’s personal liberty. As
        the Court summarized:
               [D]anger to an oﬃcer from a traﬃc stop is likely to be
               greater when there are passengers in addition to the
               driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same
               basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as
               there is for ordering the driver out, the additional in-
               trusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore
               hold that an oﬃcer making a traﬃc stop may order
               passengers to get out of the car pending completion
               of the stop.
        Id. at 414–15, 137 S. Ct. at 886.
               So, in the case at hand, Deputy Dunn could ask Johnson to
        step out of the vehicle during the vehicular stop.
                                            III.
              The District Court’s answer to the ﬁrst question this appeal
        presents was that the Fourth Amendment precluded Deputy Dunn
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 20 of 55

        20                     Opinion of the Court                  21-10670

        from requesting Johnson to identify himself because Dunn had no
        reason to suspect that Johnson had, was, or was likely to commit a
        criminal oﬀense. Stated another way, Johnson had a Fourth
        Amendment right to refuse Dunn’s request.
               Paraphrasing what the Supreme Court said in Brendlin, John-
        son was seized just as the driver was from the moment the vehicle
        in which they were riding came to a halt on the side of the road.
        Under Florida law, all the vehicle’s occupants would be asked to
        identify themselves. The driver would be asked to produce his li-
        cense and vehicle registration as part of Dunn’s mission to investi-
        gate the traﬃc violation. Assume for the sake of discussion that
        asking Johnson to identify himself was not part of Dunn’s mission
        to investigate the violation; rather it was an additional intrusion
        into Johnson’s liberty.
               Mimms and Wilson instruct on how to determine whether
        the additional intrusion amounted to an unreasonable search under
        the Fourth Amendment. We engage in Brignoni-Ponce balancing.
        In the setting here, we weigh the additional intrusion into the pas-
        senger’s liberty against the public’s interest in protecting oﬃcer
        safety. In Florida, a passenger, like the vehicle’s driver, expects to
        be asked for identiﬁcation. It is a precautionary measure to protect
        oﬃcer safety. In Mimms, it was the oﬃcer’s practice, not a state law,
        to order all drivers stopped for traﬃc violations to exit the vehicle
        as a “‘precautionary measure’ to protect the oﬃcer’s safety.” Wil-
        son, 519 U.S. at 412 (citation omitted). That this practice weighed
        heavily on the public side of the Brignoni-Ponce scales was ‘‘too plain
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023    Page: 21 of 55

        21-10670               Opinion of the Court                       21

        for argument.” Id. The practice’s purpose, oﬃcer safety, was “both
        legitimate and weighty.” Id.
               The protection of oﬃcer safety was legitimate and weighty
        when Dunn asked Johnson to identify himself. Johnson was una-
        ware of the state policy of requiring passengers in lawfully stopped
        vehicles to identify themselves. Should that unawareness counter
        the weight given the public’s interest in oﬃcer safety? At best for
        Johnson, it’s an open question.
                The District Court’s answer to the second question this ap-
        peal presents was that Supreme Court precedent clearly established
        that Deputy Dunn violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment right not
        to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure in requiring Johnson to
        identify himself. We disagree. Supreme Court precedent—in par-
        ticular, the decisions the District Court relied on—did not clearly
        establish as a matter of Fourth Amendment law that an oﬃcer can-
        not ask a passenger to identify himself unless the oﬃcer has this
        reasonable suspicion or reason to believe that the passenger poses
        a risk to his safety. Therefore, Dunn is entitled to the dismissal of
        Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim under the doctrine of quali-
        ﬁed immunity.
                                        IV.
               The District Court concluded that Deputy Dunn lacked ar-
        guable probable cause to arrest Johnson for violating § 843.02 be-
        cause Johnson had a Fourth Amendment right to refuse to identify
        himself when Dunn asked him to. The District Court erred. We
        doubt that the Florida Supreme Court would hold that a passenger
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023    Page: 22 of 55

        22                     Opinion of the Court                21-10670

        is free to resist an oﬃcer’s request for identiﬁcation in the setting
        this case presents. At the very least, it is arguable that the Court
        would uphold the request and ﬁnd the oﬃcer had at least arguable
        cause to arrest the passenger for resisting an oﬃcer without vio-
        lence in violation of § 843.02.
                                         V.
               For the reasons we have expressed, the District Court’s judg-
        ment denying Deputy Dunn’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the
        doctrine of qualiﬁed immunity is
                     REVERSED.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 23 of 55

        21-10670               BRANCH, J., Concurring                         1

        BRANCH, Circuit Judge, Concurring:
                To overcome a government official’s invocation of the de-
        fense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the offi-
        cial violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was “clearly
        established” at the time of the official’s purported misconduct.
        Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Notably, we may ad-
        dress the two prongs in any order. Id. at 236. I take the second
        prong first.
                The majority concludes that Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47
        (1979), and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S.
        177 (2004), establish that Officer Dunn did not commit a constitu-
        tional violation when he required Johnson to provide identification
        during the traffic stop. The dissent, on the other hand, argues that
        binding Supreme Court precedent, including Brown and Hiibel, es-
        tablishes that Officer Dunn did commit a constitutional violation
        when he required Johnson to provide identification. That the ma-
        jority and the dissent vehemently debate the proper application of
        Brown and Hiibel to the particular facts of this case is an indication
        that the caselaw does not clearly establish that a constitutional vio-
        lation occurred. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 64
        (2018) (emphasizing that “existing precedent must place the lawful-
        ness of the particular arrest ‘beyond debate’” for a violation to be
        clearly established (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741
        (2011))).
              The majority concludes that Johnson has failed to meet his
        burden on both prongs. But because Johnson has not satisfied the
USCA11 Case: 21-10670    Document: 42-1    Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 24 of 55

        2                   BRANCH, J., Concurring              21-10670

        “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I
        stop here and conclude that Officer Dunn is entitled to qualified
        immunity and that we need not address the first prong. As such, I
        concur only in the judgment of the majority.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 25 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                         1

        WILSON, Circuit Judge, Dissenting:
               Appellant James Dunn and other Pasco County police offic-
        ers pulled over Appellee Marques Johnson’s father for driving with
        an allegedly obscured license plate. The traffic stop was routine,
        and the interactions between Johnson’s father and the officers were
        amicable. Officer Dunn demanded that Johnson—who was quietly
        sitting in the passenger seat of his father’s car—identify himself.
        Johnson calmly stated that he was not the subject of the investiga-
        tion and declined to provide his identification. So, Officer Dunn
        arrested him.
               The Supreme Court has consistently held that law enforce-
        ment officers cannot require, by threat of arrest, that an individual
        identify himself absent reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and to
        this day, the Court has not qualified this basic principle. Because
        the majority attempts to manufacture a new exception to this im-
        portant constitutional protection, I respectfully dissent.
               I would affirm the well-reasoned decision of the district
        court denying Officer Dunn’s motion to dismiss.
                                          I.
               On August 2, 2018, Johnson and another person were pas-
        sengers in a motor vehicle driven by Johnson’s father in Pasco
        County, Florida. Oﬃcer Dunn stopped the vehicle, which was tow-
        ing a motorcycle on a trailer, on the basis that the car’s license plate
        was obscured from view. Oﬃcer Dunn arrived with Oﬃcers
USCA11 Case: 21-10670       Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023        Page: 26 of 55

        2                        WILSON, J., Dissenting                  21-10670

        Ramos and Pini and a ﬁlm crew from the A&E television show
        “Live PD.” 1
               Officer Dunn approached the passenger side of the vehicle
        and requested the driver’s information. He then asked Johnson if
        he had his “ID on him too.” Johnson responded that he was not
        required to identify himself, being merely a passenger and not the
        subject of the investigation. Officer Dunn responded that Florida
        law required Johnson to identify himself and that he, Officer Dunn,
        would pull Johnson from the vehicle and arrest him for resisting an
        officer if he did not identify himself. Officer Ramos repeated that
        Johnson must identify himself. Officer Ramos then stated to John-
        son’s father, “Listen, you can tell us who he is. We can do it that
        way.” Johnson’s father, who had already provided his own identi-
        fication, then identified Johnson as his son and provided Johnson’s
        name to both Officers Dunn and Ramos. Officer Pini then ap-
        proached, and Officer Dunn stated to him, “He didn’t want to give
        me his ID and all that, but his dad gave him up.”
               After making a brief trip to the police car to enter infor-
        mation into his computer, Officer Dunn returned and asked Officer
        Pini to have his police dog conduct a drug sniff of the car. Officers
        Dunn and Pini agreed they would ask Johnson to exit the car and
        would forcefully pull him out if he did not exit voluntarily. Officer
        Pini then told Johnson and the other vehicle occupants that his dog
        would be conducting a narcotics sniff of the vehicle and ordered

        1 The traffic stop was captured by the film crew, a video recording of which

        remains accessible at https://youtu.be/zXEXu640E1k.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 27 of 55

        21-10670                WILSON, J., Dissenting                         3

        Johnson to exit. As Johnson was exiting the vehicle, Officer Dunn
        stated to Officer Pini that “I am going to take him in no matter
        what because he’s resisting me.” Officer Dunn then placed John-
        son in handcuffs. After placing him in handcuffs, Officer Dunn
        grabbed Johnson’s pinky finger and twisted it away from the rest
        of his hand to force him to release his wallet. After Johnson asked
        why he was being arrested, Officer Dunn responded that it was be-
        cause Johnson did not give his name when it was demanded, and
        therefore, he was resisting. While Johnson was seated in Officer
        Dunn’s police vehicle, Officer Dunn entered Johnson’s information
        into the computer.
              At this time, Officer Ramos was speaking to Johnson’s father
        and the other passenger, while Officer Pini searched the vehicle.
        Johnson’s father again provided Johnson’s information to Officer
        Ramos, even confirming the spelling of Johnson’s first name and
        providing Johnson’s date of birth.
                Officer Ramos then went to Officer Dunn to provide him
        with this information, but Officer Dunn responded, “Oh, I got it. I
        got his ID out of his wallet.” Officer Dunn then explained to John-
        son’s father that he was taking Johnson to jail because Florida law
        mandated that “all occupants of the vehicle are required to . . .
        identify themselves, they don’t have to physically produce an iden-
        tification, but they got to at least ID themselves and we got to be
        able to ID who is in the car . . . [s]o with him doing that, its obstruc-
        tion . . . .” He then stated, “. . . if anyone prevents me from doing
        my job, I am going to take them to jail. I understand he is trying
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 28 of 55

        4                      WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        to exercise his rights there and everything, but we also have rights
        to do our job.” Officer Pini did not find any drugs in the car.
               Johnson was taken to the Pasco County Jail and charged
        with a violation of Florida Statute § 843.02, Resisting Officer With-
        out Violence to His or Her Person. The charges against Johnson
        were dismissed.
                Johnson sued Officer Dunn in his individual capacity, and
        Sheriff Chris Nocco in his official capacity, in federal district court
        for alleged constitutional and state law violations. The defendant
        officers moved to dismiss. In response to Johnson’s constitutional
        claim—False Arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment—the
        officers argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. The dis-
        trict court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Rele-
        vant here, the district court rejected Officer Dunn’s qualified im-
        munity defense because Johnson had a legal right to refuse to pro-
        vide his identification; therefore, Officer Dunn had neither actual
        nor arguable probable cause to arrest Johnson based on law that
        was clearly established at the time of the arrest. Officer Dunn ap-
        pealed the denial of qualified immunity.
                                         II.
               Oﬃcer Dunn challenges the district court’s denial of quali-
        ﬁed immunity for Johnson’s § 1983 false arrest claim. Qualiﬁed im-
        munity protects municipal oﬃcers from liability in § 1983 actions
        if “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, 818 (1982). Establishing
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 29 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                         5

        a qualiﬁed immunity claim engages the parties in a burden-shifting
        test. See Lewis v. City of W. Palm Beach, 561 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir.
        2009). Under this test, the oﬃcer must ﬁrst demonstrate that he
        acted “within his discretionary authority.” Id. Once the oﬃcer has
        established this, the plaintiﬀ must “show that qualiﬁed immunity
        should not apply.” Id. At this point, we utilize a two-prong frame-
        work, asking 1) whether the oﬃcer’s conduct “amounted to a con-
        stitutional violation,” and 2) whether the right was “clearly estab-
        lished” at the time of the violation. T.R. ex rel. Brock v. Lamar Cnty.
        Bd. of Educ., 25 F.4th 877, 882–83 (11th Cir. 2022).
                Oﬃcer Dunn arrested Johnson for violating Florida Statute
        § 843.02, which states that “[w]hoever shall resist, obstruct, or op-
        pose any oﬃcer . . . in the lawful execution of any legal duty, with-
        out oﬀering or doing violence to the person of the oﬃcer, shall be
        guilty of a misdemeanor of the ﬁrst degree.” There is no dispute
        that Oﬃcer Dunn was acting within his discretionary authority at
        the time of the arrest. So, for Johnson’s claim to overcome Oﬃcer
        Dunn’s defense of qualiﬁed immunity, Johnson must ﬁrst show that
        Oﬃcer Dunn lacked probable cause to make the arrest—a consti-
        tutional violation—by showing either 1) that Oﬃcer Dunn was not
        engaged in “the lawful execution of any legal duty” when he re-
        quired Johnson to reveal his identity, or 2) that he, Johnson, was not
        “resist[ing], obstruct[ing], or oppos[ing] any oﬃcer” under our in-
        terpretation of § 843.02. Then, Johnson must demonstrate that at
        least one of these foundations for a constitutional violation was
        clearly established at the time of the incident, such that Oﬃcer
        Dunn would not have even arguable probable cause to make the
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 10/02/2023    Page: 30 of 55

        6                     WILSON, J., Dissenting              21-10670

        arrest. If Johnson makes either of these showings, Oﬃcer Dunn is
        not entitled to qualiﬁed immunity.
               I would conclude that Oﬃcer Dunn lacked probable cause
        to arrest Johnson for two reasons. First, because the Supreme
        Court has time and again held that law enforcement oﬃcers cannot
        require identiﬁcation from citizens without reasonable suspicion
        of wrongdoing, and they certainly cannot arrest those citizens un-
        suspected of wrongdoing for declining to disclose their identities,
        Oﬃcer Dunn was not engaged “in the lawful execution of any legal
        duty” when he arrested Johnson. The majority seems to recognize
        this principle but concludes that oﬃcers’ understandable anxiety
        about not knowing the names of everyone in a vehicle at a traﬃc
        stop justiﬁes a new traﬃc-stop-safety exception to this constitu-
        tional safeguard. Because the Supreme Court has never carved out
        this deep of an exception, neither should we. Second, Johnson did
        not “resist, obstruct, or oppose” Oﬃcer Dunn under this court’s
        interpretation of Florida Statute § 843.02. For these reasons, I
        would conclude that Johnson’s arrest lacked probable cause and
        thus violated the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Further, be-
        cause the Supreme Court precedents that establish these principles
        date back decades, I would hold that, at the time of Johnson’s ar-
        rest, it was clearly established that Oﬃcer Dunn’s conduct
        amounted to a constitutional violation. I will address each of these
        points in turn.
              Before I do, though, I will pause to make a couple brief
        notes. There is no question that our nation’s law enforcement
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 31 of 55

        21-10670                WILSON, J., Dissenting                          7

        oﬃcers must frequently perform diﬃcult, dangerous, and often
        thankless tasks in the service of their communities. The risks
        borne by oﬃcers is often underappreciated, and I doubt many of-
        ﬁcers who stumble over the constitutional line while confronting
        the undeniable stresses of their sworn duties do so with any mali-
        cious intent. Yet even mistakes that carry well-meaning oﬃcers
        over the line are nonetheless constitutional violations. I hold noth-
        ing but the utmost respect for my colleagues in the majority for
        their well-articulated positions on this matter. But, because I be-
        lieve a citizen’s clearly established constitutional right was violated
        in this case, I believe the district judge got it right, and I must there-
        fore dissent. Now, I will explain why.
                                           III.
               The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to
        be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and
        seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Our analysis of whether a citi-
        zen’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated under a particular
        set of facts considers “the reasonableness in all the circumstances
        of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal se-
        curity.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).
               Whether an arrest meets the “reasonableness” requirement
        of the Fourth Amendment depends on “the presence or absence of
        probable cause for the arrest.” Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130,
        1137 (11th Cir. 2007). “[P]robable cause exists when the facts, con-
        sidering the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the per-
        spective of a reasonable oﬃcer, establish ‘a probability or
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 32 of 55

        8                     WILSON, J., Dissenting              21-10670

        substantial chance of criminal activity.’” Washington v. Howard, 25
        F.4th 891, 898–99 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting District of Columbia v.
        Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018)).
               Determining whether Oﬃcer Dunn’s conduct amounted to
        a constitutional violation requires this court to decide whether an
        oﬃcer may compel a passenger at a lawful, routine traﬃc stop to
        identify himself—absent reasonable suspicion that the passenger
        was engaged in any criminality, and absent any extraordinary
        safety concerns. In addition, this court must consider whether the
        mere refusal to provide one’s name to police oﬃcers while they in-
        vestigate the conduct of another amounts to “resistance” or “ob-
        struction” under Florida Statute § 843.02. Guided by precedent, I
        would answer both inquiries in the negative. Consequently, I
        would hold that Oﬃcer Dunn’s arrest of Johnson lacked probable
        cause and constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in viola-
        tion of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.
                          A. Lawful Execution of Any Legal Duty
               Oﬃcer Dunn arrested Johnson for declining to provide his
        name as a passenger at a routine traﬃc stop. For Oﬃcer Dunn to
        have probable cause to make this arrest under Florida Statute
        § 843.02, he must have been engaged in the “lawful execution of
        any legal duty” when he required Johnson to disclose his identity.
        The question, then, is whether it was lawful for Oﬃcer Dunn, ab-
        sent any reasonable suspicion that Johnson had engaged in wrong-
        doing, to require Johnson to identify himself.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 33 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                         9

               For Oﬃcer Dunn’s requirement to be lawful, it must be con-
        sistent with the Fourth Amendment’s command that government
        intrusions into privacy be reasonable under the circumstances. See
        Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 310 (2015) (per curiam) (“The
        Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches.”). An in-
        trusion is generally reasonable if the government interest in con-
        ducting the search outweighs the private citizen’s interest in re-
        maining free from arbitrary government interference. See Terry,
        392 U.S. at 20–21; Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427 (2004) (“[I]n
        judging reasonableness, we look to ‘the gravity of the public con-
        cerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure ad-
        vances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with
        individual liberty.’” (quoting Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979))).
               For the government interest side of the scale to carry any
        weight, however, we must ﬁnd both that the oﬃcer’s “action was
        justiﬁed at its inception, and [that] it was reasonably related in
        scope to the circumstances which justiﬁed the interference in the
        ﬁrst place.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. “[I]n justifying the particular in-
        trusion the police oﬃcer must be able to point to speciﬁc and artic-
        ulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from
        those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Id. at 21.
               I restate the facts of the stop as relevant to this point. Oﬃcer
        Dunn pulled over the vehicle carrying Johnson because the car’s
        license plate was obscured by an attached trailer. Johnson’s father
        operated the vehicle, while Johnson rode as a passenger in the front
        seat. Consistent with the scope of the investigation into the license
USCA11 Case: 21-10670       Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023       Page: 34 of 55

        10                      WILSON, J., Dissenting                   21-10670

        plate, Oﬃcer Dunn requested identifying information from John-
        son’s father, who quickly complied. Then, despite not suspecting
        Johnson of any connection to the license plate or any other criminal activ-
        ity, Oﬃcer Dunn required Johnson to disclose his identity as well.
        Johnson, citing his constitutional rights and the fact that he was
        only a passenger in the vehicle, declined to do so. Oﬃcer Ramos
        then told Johnson’s father that they could obtain Johnson’s infor-
        mation from him instead, and Johnson’s father subsequently iden-
        tiﬁed his son. So, within one minute of Johnson’s initial refusal to
        reveal his identity, the oﬃcers acquired the information they
        sought. Nonetheless, Oﬃcer Dunn arrested Johnson for resisting
        an oﬃcer without violence.
               In my view, this arrest ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s
        protections. As caselaw from the Supreme Court and this circuit
        makes clear, a police oﬃcer may not arrest individuals for declining
        to provide their names absent any reasonable suspicion of wrong-
        doing.
                In Brown v. Texas, police oﬃcers detained and arrested a pe-
        destrian for violating a Texas law requiring a lawfully detained in-
        dividual to provide his name and address to an oﬃcer who requests
        the information. 443 U.S. at 49. But there, the Supreme Court held
        that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment “because the oﬃc-
        ers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was en-
        gaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.” Id. at 52–53. Rejecting
        the State’s justiﬁcation that the statute advanced the social objec-
        tive of “prevention of crime,” the Court stated that “even assuming
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 35 of 55

        21-10670                WILSON, J., Dissenting                        11

        that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding
        identiﬁcation from an individual without any speciﬁc basis for be-
        lieving he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the
        Fourth Amendment do not allow it.” Id. at 52. As the Court noted,
        “[in] the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of miscon-
        duct, the balance between the public interest and appellant’s right
        to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from po-
        lice interference.” Id. Although Brown involved a plaintiﬀ who was
        detained outside of a vehicle, the Court conducted the same Terry
        Fourth Amendment analysis relevant here. See id. at 50–51. This is
        because the Fourth Amendment “applies to all seizures of the per-
        son . . . [and] [w]henever a police oﬃcer accosts an individual and
        restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person.” Id.
        at 50 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, as far back
        as 1979, the Supreme Court made clear that oﬃcers may not detain
        individuals and require them to identify themselves absent reason-
        able suspicion of criminal conduct. See id. at 52.
               Twenty-ﬁve years later, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court
        of Nevada, investigating oﬃcers received a report that a man had
        assaulted a woman in a red and silver GMC truck at a speciﬁc loca-
        tion. 542 U.S. 177, 180 (2004). Police oﬃcers drove to that location,
        spotted the truck, approached the suspect, and asked for the sus-
        pect’s identiﬁcation in order to further their investigation. Id. at
        180–81. The suspect refused to identify himself after being asked
        eleven times, so the oﬃcers arrested him for violating Nevada’s
        “stop and identify” statute. Id. This time, the Court dismissed the
        petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims because “there [was] no
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 36 of 55

        12                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion,
        satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.”
        Id. at 184. The Court determined that suspects may be required to
        identify themselves at Terry stops. See id. at 186 (“Our decisions
        make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a rou-
        tine and accepted part of many Terry stops.” (emphasis added)); see
        also id. at 187–88 (“The principles of Terry permit a State to require
        a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. . . . The
        request for [the suspect’s] identity has an immediate relation to the
        purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop.” (empha-
        sis added)). But the Court also reaﬃrmed and reemphasized the
        principle that “an oﬃcer may not arrest a suspect for failure to iden-
        tify himself if the request for identiﬁcation is not reasonably related
        to the circumstances justifying the stop.” Id. at 188 (emphases
        added).
                Here, police oﬃcers stopped a vehicle driven by Johnson’s
        father due to an allegedly obscured license plate. Unlike the peti-
        tioner in Hiibel, Johnson—a passenger in the vehicle—was not the
        “suspect” of any alleged crime, and his identity bore no relation to
        the allegedly obscured license plate that justiﬁed stopping his fa-
        ther’s car in the ﬁrst place. Much more like the petitioner in Brown,
        the oﬃcers possessed no reasonable suspicion to believe Johnson
        had engaged in any criminal conduct when they required him to
        reveal his identity. See 443 U.S. at 52–53. Without this requisite
        suspicion, however, the oﬃcers could not, consistent with the
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023          Page: 37 of 55

        21-10670                   WILSON, J., Dissenting                               13

        Fourth Amendment, require identiﬁcation from Johnson. See id. 2
        Although requiring the name of a passenger may seem like an in-
        signiﬁcant procedural matter, I think it obvious that the govern-
        ment has no interest in taking any step, however slight, beyond the
        bounds of the Constitution.
                By my reading of the caselaw, it was not lawful for Oﬃcer
        Dunn to require the disclosure of Johnson’s identity absent reasona-
        ble suspicion of wrongdoing. Consequently, Oﬃcer Dunn was not
        engaged “in the lawful execution of [a] legal duty” under Florida
        Statute § 843.02 and lacked probable cause to arrest Johnson. The
        arrest, therefore, violated Johnson’s constitutional rights.
                                           B. Officer Safety
              Notwithstanding Terry’s holding that a seizure must be “jus-
        tiﬁed at its inception” and any subsequent search must be

        2 I note that Officer Dunn’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment because

        he required Johnson to disclose his identity. Contrary to the majority’s conten-
        tion, I recognize that it is abundantly clear that Officer Dunn was free to request
        Johnson’s name. In Florida v. Bostick, the Supreme Court noted that “even
        when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may
        generally ask questions of that individual.” 501 U.S. 429, 434–35 (1991) (empha-
        sis added). Police officers cross the constitutional line, however, when they
        “convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.” Id. at 435.
        Indeed, the Court emphasized that absent reasonable suspicion of wrongdo-
        ing, it had “consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does
        not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention
        or seizure.” Id. at 437 (collecting cases). While Bostick did not involve a tradi-
        tional traffic stop, it did involve questioning a passenger on a parked commer-
        cial bus, a situation that, largely, presents the same risks to officers at issue
        here. See id. at 431–32.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 38 of 55

        14                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances” that justiﬁed the
        initial interference, 392 U.S. at 20, Oﬃcer Dunn asks this court to
        hold that a deputy can constitutionally command passengers at traf-
        ﬁc stops to reveal their identities—even absent reasonable suspicion
        of wrongdoing—and arrest those who fail to comply. While this
        proposition seems to ﬂy in the face of Brown and Hiibel, Oﬃcer
        Dunn argues that general traﬃc-stop safety concerns make such an
        intrusion into the liberties of vehicle passengers reasonable, even if
        those passengers have done nothing speciﬁc to warrant such an in-
        trusion. In making this argument, Officer Dunn does not articulate
        any speciﬁc safety concerns the passengers presented during this
        routine traﬃc stop. Rather, Officer Dunn argues that a generalized
        concern that oﬃcers may not know “who a passenger might be and
        whether that passenger has a warrant out for his arrest or might
        otherwise present a safety risk” justiﬁes a broad rule that oﬃcers
        may require identiﬁcation from passengers at every traﬃc stop. In-
        itial Brief of Defendant/Appellant James Dunn at 8, Johnson v.
        Dunn, No. 21-10670 (11th Cir. ﬁled July 19, 2021). After reviewing
        the Supreme Court’s precedents on this issue, I disagree.
               I start with the basic rule that “[a] seizure for a traﬃc viola-
        tion justiﬁes a police investigation of that violation.” Rodriguez v.
        United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (emphasis added). During a
        traﬃc stop, police oﬃcers’ “mission” is “to address the traﬃc viola-
        tion that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns.”
        Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). It must be remembered,
        though, that “the government’s oﬃcer safety interest stems from
        the mission of the stop itself.” Id. at 356. So, while traﬃc stops
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 10/02/2023    Page: 39 of 55

        21-10670              WILSON, J., Dissenting                     15

        indeed pose unique risks to police oﬃcers, and those risks in turn
        may justify “negligibly burdensome precautions,” those precau-
        tions may not “detour[]” from the oﬃcers’ mission. Id.
                To be sure, the Supreme Court has identiﬁed speciﬁc safety
        risks unique to traﬃc stops and related to oﬃcers’ missions that
        warrant additional, targeted intrusions into vehicle occupants’ lib-
        erties regardless of reasonable suspicion. Yet—as I discuss below—
        the speciﬁc dangers cited by the Court are not lessened to any sig-
        niﬁcant degree by knowing the names of passengers entirely un-
        suspected of wrongdoing.
                The majority highlights those same unique dangers to argue
        in favor of creating a broad rule that would allow police oﬃcers to
        extract the names of passengers at any traﬃc stop, regardless of
        reasonable suspicion. The majority cites principally to two cases:
        Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (per curiam) and Mary-
        land v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). Yet, by my reading, those cases
        do not support the proposition that requiring the names of passen-
        gers unsuspected of wrongdoing during a routine traﬃc stop is
        part of the oﬃcers’ lawful mission or, at most, a de minimis addi-
        tional intrusion. Rather, in my opinion, those cases stand for the
        principle that speciﬁc risks unique to traﬃc stops make it reasona-
        ble for oﬃcers to exercise temporary physical control over drivers
        and passengers.
               In Mimms, the Court held that oﬃcers may require the driver
        of a vehicle reasonably stopped for a traﬃc violation to step out of
        the automobile. 434 U.S. at 111. To reach this conclusion, the
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 40 of 55

        16                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                 21-10670

        Court balanced the public interest proﬀered by the State—police
        oﬃcer safety—with an individual’s right to be free from arbitrary
        government interference. Id. at 109. The Court found “too plain
        for argument” the State’s safety justiﬁcation, citing 1) the danger
        that oﬃcers may face dealing with an individual whose movements
        may be obscured while inside a vehicle, and 2) the hazard created
        by passing traﬃc while an oﬃcer stands on the driver’s side of an
        automobile. Id. at 110–11. “Against this important interest,” the
        Court considered a request to get out of a vehicle to be a de minimis
        intrusion because “[t]he driver is being asked to expose to view very
        little more of his person than is already exposed” and “[t]he police
        have already lawfully decided that the driver shall be brieﬂy de-
        tained; the only question is whether he shall spend that period sit-
        ting in the driver’s seat of his car or standing alongside it.” Id. at
        111.
                In Wilson, the Supreme Court extended its reasoning in
        Mimms to hold that law enforcement may also require passengers to
        get out of a vehicle during a traﬃc stop. 519 U.S. at 415. This time,
        the Court weighed the public interest in oﬃcer safety against the
        personal liberties of passengers. See id. at 413–14. The Court found
        that while the danger posed by oncoming traﬃc is reduced on the
        passenger-side of the vehicle, “the motivation of a passenger to em-
        ploy violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime is every bit
        as great as that of the driver,” and therefore, it is reasonable to re-
        quire passengers to step outside of a vehicle where they “will be denied
        access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior
        of the passenger compartment.” Id. at 414 (emphases added).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023    Page: 41 of 55

        21-10670              WILSON, J., Dissenting                      17

        Indeed, it is this risk of “sudden violence or frantic eﬀorts to con-
        ceal or destroy evidence” that counsels oﬃcers to “routinely exer-
        cise unquestioned command of the situation.” Id. (quoting Michi-
        gan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702–03 (1981)). This situational com-
        mand is achieved by brieﬂy controlling the physical movements of
        vehicle occupants. Considering the personal liberty side of the
        scale again, the Court noted that although there is no probable
        cause to believe the passengers committed a vehicular oﬀense, like
        in Mimms, the only practical diﬀerence for passengers “is that they
        will be outside of, rather than inside of, the stopped car.” Id. On
        balance, then, the Court found that requiring passengers to step
        out of an automobile during a traﬃc stop is reasonable under the
        circumstances. See id. at 415.
               Both Mimms and Wilson dealt with a speciﬁc risk inherent in
        traﬃc stops: the possibility of vehicle occupants accessing the
        means with which to do violence. The solution—permitting oﬃc-
        ers to require vehicle occupants to step outside of the automo-
        bile—directly targeted that speciﬁc risk by physically moving occu-
        pants away from any concealed weapons. Here, however, there is
        a misalignment between the speciﬁc risk identiﬁed in Mimms and
        Wilson and Oﬃcer Dunn’s actions. Indeed, it is unclear how know-
        ing the name of a passenger who is not suspected of any wrongdo-
        ing would signiﬁcantly help to prevent that passenger from reach-
        ing concealed weapons and committing acts of violence. See
        Mimms, 434 U.S. at 110 (citing a report on oﬃcer shootings to sup-
        port the Court’s recognition of the “inordinate risk confronting an
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023          Page: 42 of 55

        18                         WILSON, J., Dissenting                       21-10670

        oﬃcer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile”).3 To
        the degree that knowing the names of each vehicle occupant does
        address the speciﬁc risk identiﬁed in Mimms and Wilson, it does so
        in a way far more indirect—far more like a proscribed “detour”—
        than the method endorsed in Mimms and Wilson.4

        3 My position would not leave police officers without any ability to take pre-

        cautionary measures. If officers suspect that vehicle occupants are concealing
        weapons or might destroy evidence—or even if they do not—the Supreme
        Court has prescribed a solution: they may order everyone out of the vehicle.
        See Wilson, 519 U.S. at 415. As described in more detail below, officers have
        even more prophylactic tools at their disposal if they develop a reasonable sus-
        picion that a safety risk in fact exists or if a hazardous situation arises.
        4 In United States v. Landeros, the Ninth Circuit rejected the idea that extending

        the length of a traﬃc stop to determine a passenger’s name would enhance
        oﬃcer safety, noting that “knowing [the passenger’s] name would not have
        made the oﬃcers any safer. Extending the stop, and thereby prolonging the
        oﬃcers’ exposure to [the passenger], was, if anything, inversely related to of-
        ﬁcer safety.” 913 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted).
        While I do not go so far here, I note that other circuits—though, only the
        Ninth explicitly contemplated oﬃcer safety concerns—have held that, absent
        reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, oﬃcers may not rely on a passenger’s
        mere failure to identify himself at a traﬃc stop as a justiﬁcation for an arrest or
        a prolonged detention. See id. at 870 (ﬁnding that oﬃcers may not extend a
        traﬃc stop to demand a passenger’s identity absent reasonable suspicion of
        criminality); Corona v. Aguilar, 959 F.3d 1278, 1283–85 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding
        that oﬃcers could not arrest a passenger for concealing his identity absent “a
        particularized and objective basis for suspecting Plaintiﬀ had committed any
        oﬀense or was engaging in criminal activity”); Johnson v. Thibodaux City, 887
        F.3d 726, 734 (5th Cir. 2018) (concluding that oﬃcers could not continue the
        detention of a passenger unsuspected of wrongdoing “solely to obtain identi-
        ﬁcation”).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 43 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                      19

                And I must still balance the government interest in taking
        this detour against considerations of individual liberties. Again,
        the liberty interest at stake here is quite diﬀerent from the one ad-
        dressed in Mimms and Wilson. Unlike being asked to expose a little
        more of one’s body during a traﬃc stop, having to disclose one’s
        identity is a much greater (and permanent) additional intrusion
        into privacy. The question in a case like Johnson’s is not simply
        whether a passenger would spend a brief traﬃc stop inside or out-
        side of a car, but whether a passenger would be forced to reveal to
        law enforcement his identity (and everything attendant to it).
        While the latter intrusion may only seem slight—or de minimis—
        its constitutional signiﬁcance is highlighted by those cases that re-
        quire oﬃcers to have reasonable suspicion of criminality before be-
        ing able to require that information. See Brown, 443 U.S. at 52;
        Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 187–88; Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437. Given the mini-
        mal degree to which extracting the names of passengers unsus-
        pected of wrongdoing addresses the risks identiﬁed in Mimms and
        Wilson, I would ﬁnd that “the balance between the public interest
        and [the individual’s] right to personal security and privacy tilts in
        favor of freedom from police interference.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 52.
               Because the rule proposed by Oﬃcer Dunn bears little rela-
        tion to those dangers speciﬁcally identiﬁed in Mimms and Wilson, I
        am left only to consider the separate risk that Officer Dunn identi-
        ﬁed: not knowing every individual in the vehicle, their criminal rec-
        ord, or their proclivity for violence. This risk—not knowing every-
        one in a group while investigating the conduct of an individual—is
        not unique to a traﬃc-stop setting. Rather, it arises any time police
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 44 of 55

        20                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        oﬃcers deal with a single person in a gathering, and the Supreme
        Court has yet to identify any situation in which law enforcement
        may require individuals unsuspected of wrongdoing to disclose
        their identities. Thus far, the Court has only crafted a narrow, per
        se rule permitting additional intrusions without reasonable suspicion
        at traﬃc stops in order to address dangers that are inherent and
        unique to traﬃc stops. See Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414–15.
               When police oﬃcers conducting traﬃc stops are faced with
        legitimate safety concerns and want to do anything more than have
        vehicle occupants step outside of the automobile, the Supreme
        Court generally requires something more to be shown in order to
        justify the additional intrusions into privacy. This “something
        more” may either be reasonable suspicion that a safety risk in fact
        exists or the development of a hazardous situation. In Knowles v.
        Iowa, the Court identiﬁed a number of precautionary steps that of-
        ﬁcers may take to protect themselves during traﬃc stops. 525 U.S.
        113, 117–18 (1998). These steps include requiring drivers and pas-
        sengers to step out of a vehicle, id. at 118 (citing Mimms, 434 U.S. at
        111 and Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414, respectively); patting down drivers
        and passengers for concealed weapons “upon reasonable suspicion
        that they may be armed and dangerous,” id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S.
        at 29–30); and searching the passenger compartment of a vehicle
        for weapons “upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dan-
        gerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon,” id. (citing
        Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983)). Arizona v. Gant also
        grants oﬃcers the ability to search a vehicle’s passenger compart-
        ment “when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance
USCA11 Case: 21-10670        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023        Page: 45 of 55

        21-10670                  WILSON, J., Dissenting                             21

        of the passenger compartment at the time of the search” or “when
        it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest
        might be found in the vehicle.’” 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009) (quoting
        Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J., concur-
        ring in judgment)). 5
               Importantly, these additional intrusions are speciﬁcally de-
        signed to physically separate vehicle occupants from weapons.
        And just as important for this case, out of this procedural toolkit,
        only the minimally invasive step of having vehicle occupants brieﬂy
        step outside can be justiﬁed by general traﬃc stop safety concerns.
        That is, Knowles demonstrates that oﬃcers may, as a starting point
        to protect their safety, require occupants to step out of a vehicle at
        traﬃc stops. But if they wany to intrude any further, they need
        either reasonable suspicion or some extraordinary safety concern.
        See Knowles, 525 U.S. at 117–18 (noting that while oﬃcers may order
        the driver and passengers out of the car, they may only conduct
        pat-downs of individuals or search compartments “upon reasona-
        ble suspicion”). Here, neither were present.
              In my view, the precedents established by the Supreme
        Court require this panel to reject Oﬃcer Dunn’s invitation to create
        a new, broad rule granting police oﬃcers authority to extract the

        5 Knowles originally cited New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981) for the

        proposition that officers may conduct a full search of a vehicle and “containers
        therein” incident to a custodial arrest. 525 U.S. at 118. Belton, however, was
        effectively abrogated by Gant. See 556 U.S. at 343–44; see also Davis v. United
        States, 564 U.S. 229, 234–35 (2011) (recognizing the abrogation).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 46 of 55

        22                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        names of any vehicle passenger at any traﬃc stop, regardless of
        whether reasonable suspicion is present.
               This is not to say, however, that oﬃcer safety concerns can
        never justify police requiring identiﬁcation from passengers at traf-
        ﬁc stops in the absence of reasonable suspicion. The record in this
        case does not require me to consider that question today. With re-
        gard to oﬃcer safety, all I would hold is that the safety concern al-
        leged by Oﬃcer Dunn—the general risk arising from not knowing
        the names of every vehicle occupant at a routine traﬃc stop—does
        not justify the additional intrusion of compelling a passenger un-
        suspected of wrongdoing to disclose his identity to the govern-
        ment.
               In my opinion, Oﬃcer Dunn’s requirement that Johnson
        identify himself was not made lawful through reasonable suspicion
        or oﬃcer-safety concerns, and therefore, Johnson committed no
        crime by refusing to comply. As a result, there was no probable
        cause to believe that Johnson had violated Florida Statute § 843.02.
                               C. Resist, Obstruct, or Oppose
               As a refresher, the statute under which Johnson was arrested
        makes it a crime to “resist, obstruct, or oppose any oﬃcer . . . in the
        lawful execution of any legal duty, without oﬀering or doing vio-
        lence to the person of the oﬃcer.” Fla. Stat. § 843.02. Above, I
        addressed the question of whether, in my view, Oﬃcer Dunn was
        engaged in the “lawful execution of any legal duty,” and answered
        in the negative. Here, I address the additional question of whether
        a person’s non-violent refusal to comply with an (unlawful)
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 47 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                      23

        demand to disclose his identity can constitute resistance or obstruc-
        tion of a nearby investigation unrelated to that demand. I would
        conclude that it cannot. Reviewing our caselaw, it is clear to me
        that “mere words” do not constitute obstruction under Florida
        Statute § 843.02. Accordingly, for this reason too, Johnson’s arrest
        lacked probable cause and thus violated the protections guaranteed
        by our Constitution.
                For years, we have recognized that verbal interruptions and
        inquiries as to an oﬃcer’s purpose cannot, on their own, justify
        probable cause for an arrest under Florida Statute § 843.02. See Da-
        vis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 767 (11th Cir. 2006). We have also pre-
        viously held that “‘mere words’ would not suﬃce to provide prob-
        able cause for resisting without violence.” Alston v. Swarbrick, 954
        F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2020). In doing so, we found that a de-
        fendant oﬃcer lacked probable cause for making an arrest under
        § 843.02 where the arrestee “merely declined to cooperate or pro-
        vide useful information” concerning an oﬃcer’s investigation into
        someone else. Id.
               Oﬃcer Dunn required Johnson’s identiﬁcation while investi-
        gating an obscured license plate on a vehicle driven by Johnson’s
        father. In response, Johnson simply stated—correctly, in my
        view—that he was only a passenger in the vehicle and was there-
        fore not required to provide his name. Although Oﬃcer Ramos
        requested and quickly received Johnson’s identifying information
        from Johnson’s father, and although Oﬃcer Dunn later conﬁrmed
        with his fellow oﬃcers that he had veriﬁed this information as true
USCA11 Case: 21-10670        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 48 of 55

        24                        WILSON, J., Dissenting                      21-10670

        and accurate, Oﬃcer Dunn nonetheless arrested Johnson for ob-
        structing an oﬃcer without violence. But absent some hinderance
        beyond mere words, Oﬃcer Dunn lacked probable cause to make
        this arrest under our interpretation of § 843.02. 6 Because Oﬃcer
        Dunn lacked probable cause, his arrest of Johnson violated John-
        son’s constitutional rights.
                                              IV.
                Having concluded that Oﬃcer Dunn violated Johnson’s con-
        stitutional rights by arresting him under Florida Statute § 843.02
        without probable cause, I now consider whether Johnson’s rights
        in this situation were clearly established. See Corbitt v. Vickers, 929
        F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019). “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 do-
        ing is unlawful.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589
        (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
                A right may be clearly established for qualiﬁed im-
                munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law
                with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the
                constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle

        6 Beyond declining to provide his name, nothing in the record suggests that

        Johnson did anything to obstruct the officers’ investigation into the license
        plate and their later fruitless drug search. See Alston, 954 F.3d at 1319 (noting
        that that probable cause for an arrest under § 843.02 does not exist when some-
        one “merely decline[s] to cooperate or provide useful information” and does
        not “physically obstruct [an officer’s] path or otherwise prevent him from con-
        ducting his investigation as to [another person]”).
USCA11 Case: 21-10670         Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 10/02/2023         Page: 49 of 55

        21-10670                   WILSON, J., Dissenting                                 25

                within the Constitution, statute, or case law that
                clearly establishes a constitutional right; or (3) con-
                duct so egregious that a constitutional right was
                clearly violated, even in the total absence of case law.
        D.H. ex rel. Dawson v. Clayton Cnty. Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 1306, 1318 (11th Cir.
        2016).
               Law enforcement oﬃcers can marshal a successful qualiﬁed
        immunity defense if they can show that they had “arguable proba-
        ble cause” to eﬀectuate an arrest. Hardigree v. Lofton, 992 F.3d 1216,
        1225 (11th Cir. 2021). “Arguable probable cause exists if ‘reasonable
        oﬃcers in the same circumstances and possessing the same
        knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable
        cause existed.’” Id. (quoting Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988, 996
        (11th Cir. 1995)). This determination “depends on the elements of
        the alleged crime and the operative facts.” Id. at 1230. Here, if
        Johnson’s rights were not “clearly established,” then Oﬃcer Dunn
        had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.
                In my opinion, it was clearly established that Oﬃcer Dunn’s
        arrest of Johnson under Florida Statute § 843.02 violated Johnson’s
        Fourth Amendment rights. At the time of Johnson’s arrest, a string
        of controlling cases made clear that police oﬃcers may not require
        identiﬁcation absent reasonable suspicion of criminality and that
        “mere words” do not constitute obstruction of oﬃcers performing
        their legal duties under § 843.02. Further, there was no reason to
        believe that concerns about oﬃcer safety at a routine traﬃc stop
        would justify requiring passengers unsuspected of wrongdoing to
        disclose their identities. On these three bases, I would ﬁnd that “a
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 50 of 55

        26                      WILSON, J., Dissenting                 21-10670

        broader, clearly established principle . . . control[s] the novel facts,”
        making it apparent “in the light of pre-existing law” that Officer
        Dunn’s actions were unlawful. See Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1312.
                           A. Lawful Execution of Any Legal Duty
                The ﬁrst basis on which I would ﬁnd Johnson’s arrest uncon-
        stitutional is that Oﬃcer Dunn lacked reasonable suspicion of
        wrongdoing when he required Johnson to disclose his identity. Su-
        preme Court precedent has consistently required an oﬃcer to have
        a reasonable and articulable suspicion that an individual is involved
        in criminal activity before requiring identiﬁcation.
                This principle has long been clearly established. First, that
        traﬃc stops are subject to the same rules as Terry stops has been
        clearly established since at least 1984. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468
        U.S. 420, 439–40 (1984) (“[T]he usual traﬃc stop is more analogous
        to a so-called ‘Terry stop,’ than to a formal arrest.” (internal citation
        omitted)). Second, under Terry’s progeny—Brown and Hiibel—it
        has been clearly established since at least 2004 (if not 1979) that a
        person cannot be arrested for refusing to identify themselves ab-
        sent reasonable suspicion. See Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 188 (approving
        compulsory identiﬁcation only “in the course of a valid Terry stop”
        and emphasizing that “an oﬃcer may not arrest a suspect for failure
        to identify himself if the request for identiﬁcation is not reasonably
        related to the circumstances justifying the stop”) (2004); Brown, 443
        U.S. at 51–53 (holding that oﬃcers could not require an individual
        who merely “looked suspicious” to identify himself absent “a rea-
        sonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct”)
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 51 of 55

        21-10670                WILSON, J., Dissenting                        27

        (1979). These decisions, handed down well before Johnson’s arrest
        on August 2, 2018, set forth clearly established law that Johnson
        could not be arrested for refusing to identify himself where there
        was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime.
                Oﬃcer Dunn pushes back on this conclusion, arguing that
        Brown and Hiibel could not establish a guiding principle for oﬃcers
        in this particular situation because those cases did not deal with
        passengers in a lawfully stopped vehicle being asked to identify
        themselves. But our qualiﬁed immunity jurisprudence “does not
        require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established.”
        Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4, 7–8 (2021) (quoting White v.
        Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (per curiam)). A party cannot say that,
        because we have not yet considered a novel, context-speciﬁc excep-
        tion to the general rule, that the rule itself is not clearly established
        in that context. But that is what the majority erroneously does here
        with little reasoning as to why.
                                       B. Officer Safety
               The second basis on which I would ﬁnd Johnson’s arrest un-
        constitutional is that general concerns for oﬃcer safety did not jus-
        tify Oﬃcer Dunn’s actions. The default rule is that oﬃcers must
        have reasonable suspicion of criminality to require individuals to
        identify themselves. See Brown, 443 U.S. at 51–52. However, recog-
        nizing the “legitimate and weighty” signiﬁcance of oﬃcer safety
        and the speciﬁc risks to oﬃcers created by the unique circum-
        stances of traﬃc stops, the Supreme Court has determined that it
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 10/02/2023       Page: 52 of 55

        28                      WILSON, J., Dissenting                  21-10670

        is constitutionally permissible for police oﬃcers conducting traﬃc
        stops to take certain precautions. See Knowles, 525 U.S. at 117–18.
               Nevertheless, the Court has also noted that concerns for of-
        ﬁcer safety, even in the context of a traﬃc stop, do not render all
        additional intrusions into the privacy of vehicle occupants reason-
        able. Absent suspicion of wrongdoing, the Court has only permit-
        ted oﬃcers to take some control over passengers’ physical move-
        ments in order to restrict their ability to do violence or destroy ev-
        idence. See id. at 117–18; Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414; see also United States
        v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting in a case where
        two individuals in a group of four possessed ﬁrearms that “[c]ase
        precedent from both the Supreme Court and this Circuit has estab-
        lished that, for safety reasons, oﬃcers may, in some circumstances,
        brieﬂy detain individuals about whom they have no individualized
        reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in the course of conduct-
        ing a valid Terry stop as to other related individuals”). Thus far, the
        Court has held that further intrusions require reasonable suspicion
        of wrongdoing or some heightened concern for oﬃcer safety. See
        Knowles, 525 U.S. at 117–18. Neither existed here, nor does Oﬃcer
        Dunn claim they did.
                In short, although the Supreme Court has identiﬁed speciﬁc
        risks inherent in traﬃc stops and has crafted targeted procedural
        remedies to address them, the Court has not created the additional
        broad rule newly proposed by the majority. Instead, the Court has
        required more to be shown if oﬃcers want to justify anything be-
        yond temporarily controlling the physical movements of
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023      Page: 53 of 55

        21-10670               WILSON, J., Dissenting                        29

        passengers. So, I would ﬁnd that at the time of Johnson’s arrest, it
        was clear that the boundaries deﬁning permissible police intrusions
        into passengers’ privacy did not extend to cover Oﬃcer Dunn’s con-
        duct.
                                 C. Resist, Obstruct, Oppose
               The third basis on which I would ﬁnd Johnson’s arrest un-
        constitutional is that this court has found, as far back as “[June 2011]
        it was clearly established that . . . ‘mere words’ [do] not suﬃce to
        provide probable cause for resisting without violence” under Flor-
        ida Statute § 843.02. Alston, 954 F.3d at 1319. We have also found
        that by 2011 it was clearly established that, absent some other form
        of obstruction, simply declining to cooperate or provide useful in-
        formation cannot support even arguable probable cause for an ar-
        rest under § 843.02. Id. So here, in August 2018, Officer Dunn
        lacked even arguable probable cause to arrest Johnson under
        § 843.02 given that 1) the oﬃcers were investigating a traﬃc oﬀense
        for which Johnson was not a suspect, 2) Johnson merely explained
        his rights and declined to provide his name, 3) Oﬃcer Ramos told
        Johnson’s father that his identiﬁcation of his son would suﬃce, and
        4) Oﬃcer Dunn then quickly received and veriﬁed Johnson’s infor-
        mation.
              In my view, no “reasonable oﬃcer[] in the same circum-
        stances and possessing the same knowledge as [Oﬃcer Dunn] could
        have believed that probable cause existed” for an arrest for obstruct-
        ing an oﬃcer without violence where the detainee was not sus-
        pected of wrongdoing, simply declined to provide his name, was
USCA11 Case: 21-10670      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023     Page: 54 of 55

        30                     WILSON, J., Dissenting                21-10670

        nonetheless quickly and truthfully identiﬁed, and was identiﬁed in
        a manner consistent with an oﬃcer’s instructions. Hardigree, 992
        F.3d at 1225. Therefore, I agree with the district court below that
        this arrest violated Johnson’s clearly established Fourth Amend-
        ment rights.
                                         V.
               The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that reasonable sus-
        picion of criminality is needed before police oﬃcers can require in-
        dividuals to identify themselves. While the Court has found that
        safety concerns in the unique context of traﬃc stops justify oﬃcers
        taking certain precautions, it has not yet determined that those
        concerns warrant eschewing this well-established rule. Given the
        record in this case, I would decline to depart from that rule today.
        However, because the facts of this case do not necessitate it, I
        would go no further than to hold that in the context of a routine
        traﬃc stop, it is clear that general safety concerns do not justify of-
        ﬁcers requiring the names of passengers who are not suspected of
        any criminality. I would leave for another panel and a diﬀerent rec-
        ord the question of whether safety concerns at traﬃc stops can ever
        reasonably justify such an intrusion. Further, I would hold that at
        the time of the arrest, it was clearly established that “mere words”
        do not constitute obstruction or resistance of an oﬃcer under Flor-
        ida Statute § 843.02. Therefore, in my view, Oﬃcer Dunn lacked
        actual and arguable probable cause to arrest Johnson under
        § 843.02. This arrest, then, violated Johnson’s clearly established
        Fourth Amendment rights.
USCA11 Case: 21-10670     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 10/02/2023   Page: 55 of 55

        21-10670              WILSON, J., Dissenting                    31

               Though sincerely appreciative of the risks faced by our law
        enforcement officers and of the views articulated by my colleagues
        in the majority, for the reasons above, I would affirm the decision
        of the district court.