Benjamin Daker v. Brad Steube , 514 F. App'x 885 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12728
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-01784-JDW-TBM
BENJAMIN DAKER,
BARBARA S. DAKER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
BRAD STEUBE,
as Sheriff of Manatee County, Florida,
JASON RILEY,
Defendants - Appellees,
MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
MICHAEL RUSHING,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 27, 2013)
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 2 of 12
Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin and Barbara Daker sued Brad Steube, Sheriff of the Manatee
County Sheriff’s Office, and deputy sheriff Jason Riley, 1 asserting a number of
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida state law stemming from an incident in
which Riley went to the Dakers’ house to arrest their grandson and ultimately
arrested Mr. Daker. The Dakers’ case went to a jury trial. During the trial, the
district court granted the officers qualified immunity or judgment as a matter of
law on some claims. For the remaining claims, the jury found in favor of the
officers. The Dakers appeal many of these adverse dispositions. For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm.
I.
Although the Dakers and officers argue over many of the details in this case,
they agree on the gist of the story. Deputy sheriff Riley obtained a warrant for the
arrest of Benjamin Sutherland, the Dakers’ grandson. The warrant listed the
Dakers’ address as Sutherland’s residence, so Riley went to that address to make
the arrest. When he arrived, he spoke with Mr. Daker, who said Sutherland was
not home. Riley nonetheless attempted to enter the Dakers’ home to look for
1
The Dakers also originally sued the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and sheriff deputy
Michael Rushing. Both of these parties have been dismissed and are not part of this appeal.
2
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 3 of 12
Sutherland, Mr. Daker resisted, and Riley ultimately arrested Mr. Daker. Riley
went inside and searched for Sutherland, but did not find him.
Based on these events, the Dakers sued. Their complaint contained a
multitude of claims against several parties, only some of which remained live at
the start of the jury trial. 2 The following claims remained at that point: Fourth
Amendment claims under § 1983 by the Dakers for unlawful entry (Count 1) and
unreasonable search (Count 2) against Riley; a Fourth Amendment excessive-force
claim under § 1983 by Mr. Daker against Riley for the manner in which Riley
handcuffed and arrested Mr. Daker and for Riley’s alleged force used immediately
after the arrest (Count 3); a false-arrest claim under Florida law by Mr. Daker
against Steube (Count 5); and a malicious-prosecution claim under Florida law by
Mr. Daker against Riley for charges based on Mr. Daker’s alleged obstruction and
battery on a police officer (Count 6). 3 At the conclusion of trial, the district court
granted the officers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on Count 5 and on the
obstruction-based malicious-prosecution claim in Count 6. The court also granted
Riley qualified immunity on the handcuffing and arrest portion of Count 3. A jury
2
The Dakers do not challenge the judgment that disposed of some of their claims prior to trial.
3
The Dakers also made claims for unconstitutional custom or policy (Count 4), battery (Count
7), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 8). The district court granted the
officers judgment as a matter of law on Counts 4 and 8, and the jury found against Mr. Daker on
Count 7. The Dakers do not appeal these counts, and their dispositions are not relevant to this
appeal.
3
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 4 of 12
decided the remaining claims, ultimately finding in favor of the officers on each
count. The Dakers moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
The Dakers appeal only some of these adverse determinations. They appeal
the jury’s verdict on Counts 1 and 2. Mr. Daker appeals the grant of qualified
immunity on the handcuffing and arrest portion of his Count 3 excessive-force
claim, but does not appeal the jury’s verdict on the post-arrest portion of that
count. Mr. Daker also appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of law on
Count 5. And he appeals the court’s judgment as a matter of law on the
obstruction-based malicious-prosecution claim in Count 6, although he does not
appeal the jury verdict in favor of Riley on the battery portion of that count. We
discuss each portion of the Dakers’ appeal in turn.
II.
Mr. Daker appeals the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to
the officers on his state law false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims. We
review de novo the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, applying the same legal standard as the district
court. Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 420 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005).
Under Rule 50, a court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law if
“the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
4
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 5 of 12
We review all evidence in the record and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
149-50 (2000). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the
drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a
judge.” Id. at 150 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Daker’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims turn on whether
his arrest was supported by probable cause. See Mailly v. Jenne, 867 So. 2d 1250,
1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (“Probable cause is an affirmative defense to a
false arrest claim.”); Durkin v. Davis, 814 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2002) (requiring plaintiff asserting malicious-prosecution claim to establish “an
absence of probable cause for the original proceeding”). He contends that the
district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the officers
on these claims because reasonable jurors might have reached different
conclusions on whether Riley had probable cause to arrest Mr. Daker for
obstruction. Under Florida law, a person commits a misdemeanor for which an
arrest is warranted when he (1) “resist[s], obstruct[s], or oppose[s]” any officer (2)
“in the lawful execution of any legal duty.” Fla. Stat. § 843.02. This includes any
“attempt to oppose or to obstruct the officer.” Post v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 7
F.3d 1552, 1558-59 (11th Cir. 1993) (applying § 843.02).
5
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 6 of 12
“[T]he standard for determining the existence of probable cause is the same
under both Florida and federal law . . . .” Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1433
(11th Cir. 1998). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within
the officer’s knowledge . . . would cause a prudent person to believe, under the
circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to
commit an offense.” Williamson v. Mills, 65 F.3d 155, 158 (11th Cir. 1995).
When the facts are not in dispute, whether an officer had probable cause to make
an arrest is a question of law. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1506 (11th Cir.
1990).
We conclude that the district court correctly found, as a matter of law, that
Riley had probable cause to arrest Mr. Daker and that Mr. Daker’s false-arrest and
malicious-prosecution claims therefore necessarily failed. Mr. Daker argues that
Florida law and federal common law permit him to resist, without violence, an
unlawful entry into his home and an arrest. But, as the district court correctly
concluded, Riley’s entry and limited search 4 of the Dakers’ home was lawful;
accordingly, Mr. Daker’s resistance was not permitted, and was instead a crime for
which he was properly arrested.
First, Riley was lawfully executing a legal duty when he entered and
conducted a limited search of the Dakers’ home. See Fla. Stat. § 843.02. “[F]or
4
The Dakers do not argue that Riley did anything more than briefly search their home for
Sutherland’s presence.
6
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 7 of 12
Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause
implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the
suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980). And “[w]hile the ultimate objective of an arrest
entry is an arrest, the arrest can only be effected if the subject is first found and
thus a search is a necessary factual prerequisite to the possible arrest.” United
States v. Cravero, 545 F.2d 406, 416 (5th Cir. 1977).5 A permissible entry and
limited search requires (1) “a reasonable belief that the location to be searched is
the suspect’s dwelling,” and (2) “reason to believe that the suspect is within the
dwelling.” United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1263 (11th Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Undisputed evidence at trial showed Riley’s
belief that Sutherland resided at the Dakers’ address was reasonable. The warrant
for Sutherland’s arrest listed the Dakers’ address. Before going to the home to
execute the warrant, Riley checked Sutherland’s driver’s license address, which
was the Dakers’ address. Riley also checked recent booking records for
Sutherland, which returned a recent booking record noting the Dakers’ address as
Sutherland’s residence. 6
5
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981.
6
The Dakers point out that Sutherland was once arrested at a different location, but this is not
inconsistent with Riley’s conclusion that Sutherland resided at the Dakers’ address.
7
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 8 of 12
Further, based on this information and information he obtained at the
Dakers’ home, Riley had reason to believe Sutherland was inside. Riley testified
that he saw someone other than Mr. Daker in the home when the door opened, but
was not sure who it was. When he asked, twice, who was home with Mr. Daker,
rather than telling Riley that Mrs. Daker was home, Mr. Daker repeated, “I told
you already, he’s in Washington.” The Dakers argue that, when Mr. Daker told
Riley that Sutherland was out of town, Riley had no reason to disbelieve that
statement, so he thereafter lacked a reasonable belief that Sutherland was at the
residence. But based on his observations at the home, Mr. Daker’s uncooperative
nature, and the facts he ascertained before service showing the Dakers’ home was
Sutherland’s residence, it was reasonable for Riley to disbelieve Mr. Daker. For
these reasons, Riley was lawfully executing a legal duty by entering and searching
the Dakers’ residence to locate and arrest Sutherland.
As to the second element of the Florida obstruction statute, undisputed
evidence showed that Daker was obstructing, or at least attempting to obstruct,
Riley’s execution of his duty to serve Sutherland with an arrest warrant. See Fla.
Stat. § 843.02. According to Riley’s police report, entered into evidence at trial,
Riley advised Mr. Daker that he had to check inside the house to make sure
Sutherland was not home. Mr. Daker said, “do you have a search warrant, because
if not your [sic] not coming in.” Riley told Mr. Daker that he did not need a search
8
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 9 of 12
warrant to look for Sutherland because he had a warrant for Sutherland’s arrest.
Mr. Daker, according to the police report and his own complaint, then “put his
arms up to block the doorway.” This conduct shows that Mr. Daker verbally and
physically attempted to obstruct Riley as Riley sought to locate and arrest
Sutherland. Riley therefore had probable cause to arrest Mr. Daker for obstruction.
See Williamson, 65 F.3d at 158.
Riley’s probable cause to arrest Mr. Daker defeats Mr. Daker’s claims for
false arrest and malicious prosecution. See Mailly, 867 So. 2d at 1251; Durkin,
814 So. 2d at 1248. The district court was accordingly correct to grant judgment as
a matter of law in favor of Riley and Steube on these claims.
III.
Mr. Daker also argues that the district court erred in granting Riley qualified
immunity on Mr. Daker’s excessive-force claim arising from the manner in which
he was handcuffed and arrested. We review de novo a district court’s grant of
qualified immunity, resolving all issues of material fact in favor of the nonmoving
party. Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009). “To be eligible for
qualified immunity, the official must first establish that he was performing a
‘discretionary function’ at the time the alleged violation of federal law occurred.”
Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004). If the official
makes this showing, “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the
9
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 10 of 12
official is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. To do so, the plaintiff must
show that the official committed a constitutional violation in a way that was clearly
established at the time. Id.Mr. Daker makes two arguments that Riley was not entitled to qualified
immunity. He first contends that the district court improperly based its
construction of his excessive-force claim on his separate false-arrest claim, and
that claim – one based on state law – was not one for which Riley could legally be
entitled to qualified immunity. See Andreu v. Sapp, 919 F.2d 637, 640 (11th Cir.
1990) (“Qualified immunity is a defense to federal causes of action and does not
protect officials from claims based upon state law.”). The only support Mr. Daker
has for this assertion, however, is the district court’s use of the word “arrest” when
ruling on the qualified-immunity issue. Read in context, it is clear that the district
court was not confusing Mr. Daker’s false-arrest claim with his excessive-force
claim, but rather was distinguishing the grant of qualified immunity on the
handcuffing and arrest from the denial of qualified immunity on the alleged
excessive force after the arrest. There was no error in this reasoning.
Second, Mr. Daker argues that the district court was wrong on the merits of
Riley’s qualified-immunity defense. He contends Riley committed a constitutional
violation in arresting him because Riley lacked probable cause to do so. And no
amount of force is justified in the absence of probable cause. But, for the reasons
10
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 11 of 12
set forth above, the district court was correct to conclude Riley had probable cause
to arrest Mr. Daker. 7 Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting Riley
qualified immunity.
IV.
Finally, the Dakers challenge the adverse jury verdicts on their Fourth
Amendment claims for unlawful entry and unreasonable search. Specifically, they
contend that the district court’s jury instructions misled the jury into thinking Mr.
Daker’s arrest was lawful as a matter of law and, therefore, that Riley’s entry into
and search of the Dakers’ home was also, necessarily, lawful. This argument
misses the mark. Even assuming the court’s instructions were confusing, as we
have already held, Riley had probable cause as a matter of law to enter and conduct
a limited search based on the arrest warrant for Sutherland. And the Dakers do not
claim he exceeded the scope of that limited authority. Thus, the jury could not
have found for the Dakers on these claims and any error the court may have made
in instructing the jury is harmless. See Spakes v. Broward Cnty. Sheriff’s Office,
631 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding a court’s erroneous jury instruction
harmless because the jury’s conduct reflected a correct application of the law).
V.
7
Because Daker does not assert that the force Riley used was excessive under clearly established
law provided there was probable cause to arrest, he has waived any argument that it was. See
Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989).
11
Case: 12-12728 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 12 of 12
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments in favor of the officers.
AFFIRMED.
12