WBY, Inc. v. Jeffery Rutland
695 F. App'x 486
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police executed a raid at Follies, an adult club, on April 19, 2013; Schindler worked as a valet in the club’s parking lot.
- Officer Rutland approached Schindler in the lot, yelled for him to “back down,” and asked what he was doing; Schindler identified himself as a valet and asked what was happening.
- Schindler briefly hesitated, took one step back, and put his hands out placatingly; Rutland touched Schindler’s arm and another officer helped take Schindler to the ground and zip-tie his hands.
- Schindler was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct; charges were later dismissed for want of prosecution when officers did not appear at trial.
- Schindler sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful arrest (and related claims); Rutland moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, originally focused on disorderly conduct and later arguing obstruction of an officer on appeal.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on the wrongful-arrest claim (no arguable probable cause for disorderly conduct); the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Rutland’s new obstruction theory and holding no arguable probable cause existed under Georgia law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rutland is entitled to qualified immunity for Schindler’s wrongful arrest under the Fourth Amendment | Schindler: arrest lacked probable cause and thus violated Fourth Amendment | Rutland: arrest was supported by arguable probable cause (initially for disorderly conduct; on appeal for obstruction of an officer) | Denied — qualified immunity not available because, under Schindler’s version of facts, no arguable probable cause existed |
| Whether Schindler’s conduct supported probable cause for disorderly conduct | Schindler: brief hesitation and identifying himself are not loud/boisterous or inciting conduct | Rutland: Schindler refused orders and interfered with officers entering the club | District court (and Eleventh Circuit): no arguable probable cause for disorderly conduct |
| Whether Schindler’s conduct supported arguable probable cause for obstruction of an officer (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(a)) | Schindler: words and brief failure to immediately comply do not constitute obstruction | Rutland: failure to “back down” and presumed interference justified arrest for obstruction | Court: Rutland forfeited/new theory not properly raised below; on the merits, even accepting facts for Schindler, no reasonable officer could conclude obstruction occurred |
| Whether appellate court should consider a theory first raised in a reply brief/for first time on appeal | Schindler: new theory was not presented properly and should not be considered | Rutland: appellate consideration of obstruction theory justified | Held: theory was not properly presented to district court; court declines to address it, and in any event it fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Butts Cty., 821 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity framework and review of summary-judgment denials)
- Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for clearly established rights)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (arrest validity evaluated objectively; offense announced not dispositive)
- Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007) (clarifying when questions to an officer do not support arrest for obstruction)
- Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006) (inquiries to officers do not constitute obstruction or disorderly conduct)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues must be specifically and clearly raised to the district court)
- Herring v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 397 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005) (arguments raised first in a reply brief are not properly before the court)
- Coley v. State, 344 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986) (mere failure to respond immediately to an officer’s order insufficient for obstruction)