Ernest Edgar Black Jeff Wigington
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1057
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Deputies Kain and Stamatellos entered a dilapidated trailer they believed was the home of a burglary suspect ("Rabbit") after observing a cut screen and an unlocked back door; they performed a protective sweep and observed drugs and sheriff’s property in plain view.
- Investigator Wilson obtained a search warrant based on what the deputies saw; when residents Ernest and Amy Black arrived, officers executed the warrant, seized drugs/paraphernalia and sheriff’s clothing, and arrested the Blacks.
- Arrest warrants were issued and the Blacks were prosecuted; the superior court suppressed the trailer evidence, ruling the initial entry was unlawful, and the district attorney dropped charges.
- The Blacks sued under Georgia law (trespass) and federal law (malicious prosecution under § 1983) and brought a Title II ADA claim against the sheriff; some claims and defendants were later dismissed, leaving trespass (deputies), malicious prosecution (deputies & investigator), and Title II (sheriff).
- Defendants moved for immunity: Georgia official immunity (deputies), federal qualified immunity (deputies & investigator), and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (sheriff); the district court denied immunities and the officers appealed interlocutorily.
- The Eleventh Circuit held deputies Kain and Stamatellos entitled to Georgia official immunity on trespass and Kain, Stamatellos, and Wilson entitled to federal qualified immunity on malicious prosecution; it affirmed denial of sovereign immunity for the sheriff’s Title II claim and remanded that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies are barred from trespass suit by Georgia official immunity | Blacks: entry was unlawful and supports inference of actual malice, defeating official immunity | Deputies: entry was discretionary and made without actual malice (believed exigency/burglary) | Deputies entitled to official immunity; no genuine issue of actual malice |
| Whether deputies/investigator are liable for malicious prosecution under § 1983 | Blacks: prosecution lacked probable cause because evidence was obtained by an illegal search | Officers: arrest warrants were supported by probable cause; exclusionary rule does not apply in civil suit | Qualified immunity for Kain, Stamatellos, Wilson; probable cause existed and exclusionary rule inapplicable in civil suit |
| Whether the exclusionary rule/fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree applies in civil § 1983 suits against officers | Blacks: evidence obtained illegally cannot support probable cause even in civil case | Officers: exclusionary rule is inapplicable to civil suits; officers may rely on evidence to show probable cause | Court: exclusionary rule does not apply in civil suits against police officers; officers may use the evidence to establish probable cause |
| Whether the sheriff is protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from Black’s Title II ADA claim | Blacks: Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity for conduct violating Title II and the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) | Sheriff: no abrogation because Blacks’ Equal Protection claim lacks merit | Sovereign immunity abrogated where Title II and Equal Protection claims overlap; denial of sovereign immunity affirmed (claim proceeds) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Congress may abrogate sovereign immunity for conduct that violates Title II and the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity valid for certain claims under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (standard for qualified immunity: violation of clearly established rights)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (malicious prosecution requires seizure pursuant to legal process)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983)
- Jonas v. City of Atlanta, 647 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1981) (exclusionary rule not applied in civil suits against officers)
- Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154 (5th Cir. 1997) (civil suits: exclusionary rule inapplicable; officers may rely on evidence to show probable cause)