Jermaine Sutton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 700 F.3d 865

Officer Martin obtained a phone at Kroger after a shoplifting report and used a contact in the phone to identify Sutton at Summit Medical Center.
Sutton denied ownership of the found phone and produced his own phone, which Martin confiscated.
Sutton was escorted from the hospital by four officers, handcuffed, and later transported to the Kroger scene for a video review.
Szcerbiak, Kroger security, identified Sutton as the perpetrator; a warrant for misdemeanor theft was issued and Sutton was jailed.
After trial Sutton was acquitted; Sutton sued Martin and the Metropolitan Government for Fourth Amendment and related claims; district court dismissed some claims but denied Fourth Amendment claim, prompting this interlocutory appeal.
The appeal questions whether Martin had reasonable suspicion to detain Sutton and whether Sutton’s later detention/arrest was supported by probable cause; the panel affirms in part and narrows Sutton’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial detention at the hospital violated the Fourth Amendment	Sutton: no reasonable suspicion based on the phone’s tip.	Martin: phone linkage to Sutton provided suspicion to detain.	Yes, Sutton stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention.
Whether continued detention without probable cause became an arrest	Sutton: continued detention after ownership shown exceeded Terry stop.	Martin: continued detention supported by probable cause via eyeball identification.	Yes, the continued detention/stoppage after Sutton produced his own phone constituted an arrest without probable cause.
Whether Szcerbiak’s identification established probable cause for arrest	Identification alone should support probable cause.	Identification not enough if suspect had been exculpated; later video review could cast doubt.	Identification did not by itself bar the claim; nonetheless the arrest prior to identification violated the Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity analyses followed.
Whether Martin is entitled to qualified immunity	Right was clearly established; arrest without probable cause violated clearly established law.	Argues no clearly established law on Terry stop via phone-linked inference.	Qualified immunity does not shield the alleged pre-identification arrest; law was clearly established for this context.

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (seizure factors; Terry stop must be limited in scope and duration)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion supports limited detentions; scope/duration must be limited)
Royer (plurality), 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (detention factors indicating arrest in Royer context)
Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (2006) (detention and arrest standards within Terry framework)