Judith Alcocer v. Ashley Mills, 906 F.3d 944

Background

Alcocer was arrested for driving with a suspended license, posted bond, but remained detained overnight (≈26 hours) because jail staff believed ICE had placed a hold indicating she was not legally in the U.S.
The Sheriff’s Office had received a fax from ICE stating Alcocer "appears to be subject to removal proceedings" and that the response was "not a government detainer" and "not supported by fingerprints."
Jail staff (Mills and others) added notes to Alcocer’s file to contact ICE before release; Captain Staten later instructed staff to hold Alcocer pending ICE confirmation.
Alcocer’s sister repeatedly attempted to secure her release, provided proof of U.S. citizenship, and contacted an ICE agent who faxed a notice cancelling the detainer; Alcocer was released ≈10–15 minutes after ICE’s release fax.
Alcocer sued Mills and Staten under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional continued seizure (Fourth Amendment) and supervisory liability; district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity and the Fourth Amendment theory.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the Fourth Amendment governs but reversed and remanded because the district court failed to analyze qualified immunity on an individualized, defendant-by-defendant basis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which constitutional provision governs the claim?	Continued detention after bond was a new seizure implicating Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.	Defendants argued the claim is an over-detention/administrative error governed by the Fourteenth Amendment.	Fourth Amendment governs because continued detention was based on suspicion of unlawful presence—an independent basis requiring probable cause.
Was qualified immunity properly denied?	Mills and Staten should be denied immunity because no reasonable officer could have had probable cause to detain a U.S. citizen on the ICE fax.	Defendants argued they are entitled to qualified immunity and the district court’s denial was erroneous.	Remanded: district court failed to perform individualized qualified-immunity analyses for each defendant; summary-judgment denial reversed and remanded for that analysis.
Standard required to justify continued detention after bond	Alcocer: new detention required independent probable cause (or no arguable probable cause for officers).	Defendants: detention arose from administrative hold; Fourteenth amendment deliberate-indifference standard applies.	Continued detention based on suspicion of alienage requires independent probable cause; for immunity, officers must show probable or arguable probable cause.
Supervisory liability for Staten	Staten directed staff to hold Alcocer and entered notes; thus he may be liable as a supervisor.	Staten argued no supervisory liability without proof he knew facts showing detention was unlawful.	Court vacated summary disposition on this issue and remanded for individualized factual inquiry into what Staten knew and whether he reasonably relied on others.

Key Cases Cited

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework and flexible sequencing of prongs)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (constitutional claims analyzed under explicit textual provisions rather than substantive due process)
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (probable cause required to detain suspected aliens)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry-stop standard for brief investigatory stops)
Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing over-detention administrative errors under Fourteenth Amendment)
West v. Tillman, 496 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference framework for over-detention)
Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir.) (misidentification and over-detention analysis)