John ELMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Demarcos Holland, Nicole K. Sauce, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-14063
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 8, 2015.
607 Fed. Appx. 906
AFFIRMED.
John ELMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Demarcos Holland, Nicole K. Sauce, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-14063
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 8, 2015.
Brandon O. Moulard, Sherry H. Culves, Neeru Gupta, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Elmore, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his amended civil-rights complaint, under
I.
Elmore was employed by the Fulton County School District (the “District“) as a paraprofessional educator.1 In that capacity, he assisted a classroom teacher in a class with moderately to severely disabled students. One student, who was wheelchair-bound and non-verbal, had a history of biting and scratching himself whenever he got angry or frustrated. The student would also bite at others if they attempted to stop him.
Nicole Sauce2, a police officer for the District, investigated the nurse‘s complaint. Initially, Sauce prepared a memorandum. The entire allegation in the memo stated, “Teacher was observed by special needs nurse spraying a special needs student in the face for acting out in class.”
Sauce then conducted several interviews regarding the incident. These interviews, which involved at least four witnesses—the classroom teacher, Elmore, the nurse, and a student—concerned, among other issues, who, if anyone, had sprayed the student. The classroom teacher, Ms. Morrow, specifically stated that Elmore had not sprayed the student with water. Elmore denied spraying the student and stated that the spray bottle was used to demonstrate various things like rain. Sauce later falsely stated that Elmore had admitted spraying the student.3
After Sauce‘s investigation, the principal of the school, Demarcos Holland, made a complaint against Elmore, alleging child abuse. Holland directed Sauce to obtain a warrant for Elmore‘s arrest. Sauce did so without revealing the exculpatory information provided by Ms. Morrow. A Georgia state magistrate judge issued two warrants for Elmore‘s arrest, one for “Cruelty to Children,”
did spray a severe and profound juvenile repeatedly about the arms and face because he was agitated that the radio was turned down. [Elmore] used the spray to try any [sic] stop the juvenile from screaming only to further agitate him. . . . The incident took place in the presence of two witnesses, a cluster nurse and a student that confirmed the incident.
Elmore was arrested and charged with cruelty to children in the third degree and simple battery. As a result, Elmore was fired by Holland and the District.
II.
Elmore filed his complaint, which he later amended, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Elmore‘s amended complaint asserted two causes of action under
Elmore responded that Sauce was not entitled to qualified immunity because she withheld material, exculpatory information in order to obtain the arrest warrants, in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Elmore also asserted that Sauce was not entitled to qualified immunity because the actions he allegedly committed were entitled to complete immunity under
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court determined that Sauce was entitled to qualified immunity. According to the district court, even if Sauce had included the exculpatory information, the warrant affidavit still established probable cause to arrest Elmore for the offense of simple battery. And, the court concluded, probable cause for simple battery rendered his arrest valid despite a lack of probable cause for cruelty to children in the third degree. Further, the court found, Elmore‘s claim of immunity under
III.
We review de novo the district court‘s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
IV.
The defense of qualified immunity aims to strike a balance between “the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Towards that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 762 (11th Cir.2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the qualified-immunity doctrine, the official must first show that she was engaged in a discretionary function. Maddox v. Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109, 1120 (11th Cir. 2013). It is undisputed that Sauce has established this fact.
The burden then shifts to Elmore to demonstrate that Sauce is not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. To do so, Elmore must show both that Sauce violated a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad
Elmore primarily contends that Sauce is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Franks by omitting material, exculpatory evidence from her warrant affidavits. He also argues that his own immunity from criminal liability as an educator under Georgia law negated a finding of probable cause and that Sauce should have disclosed his potential immunity to the magistrate. Finally, he asserts that he may maintain a claim based on the lack of probable cause to arrest for cruelty to children, even if probable cause existed for the offense of simple battery.
A. Alleged Franks Violations
In Franks, the Supreme Court held that a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment if the affidavit supporting the warrant contains “deliberate falsity or reckless disregard” for the truth. 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684 (concerning a search warrant affidavit); see United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318, 327-29 (5th Cir.1980) (applying Franks to an arrest warrant affidavit).5 However, only false statements which are necessary to the finding of probable cause will invalidate a warrant. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. at 2676.
The reasoning of Franks also applies to omissions from a warrant affidavit. Martin, 615 F.2d at 328. “Thus, a warrant affidavit violates the Fourth Amendment when it contains omissions made intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the accuracy of the affidavit.” Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Without direct evidence of intentional or reckless conduct, a plaintiff may raise an inference of recklessness where “the facts omitted from the affidavit are clearly critical to a finding of probable cause.” Martin, 615 F.2d at 329. Omissions that are made negligently will not invalidate a warrant. Madiwale, 117 F.3d at 1327. And “even intentional or reckless omissions will invalidate a warrant only if inclusion of the omitted facts would have prevented a finding of probable cause.” Id.; see also Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he warrant is valid if, absent the misstatements or omissions, there remains sufficient content to support a finding of probable cause.“).
Elmore contends that Sauce omitted the following facts about the incident from the warrant affidavits: (1) the nurse made no complaint at the time of the spraying incident; (2) Sauce previously prepared a memo stating that “Teacher was observed by special needs nurse spraying a special needs student in the face for acting out in class“; and (3) Ms. Morrow had told Sauce that Elmore did not spray the student. As the district court did, we proceed directly to the question of whether Elmore‘s allegations and the reasonable inferences
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances, of which the official has reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. Jordan v. Mosley, 487 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2007). “No officer has a duty to prove every element of a crime before making an arrest. Police officers are not expected to be lawyers or prosecutors.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rather, in assessing probable cause, we deal with “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons], not legal technicians, act.” Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1435 (11th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sauce made out two warrant affidavits in this case, one for simple battery and the other for cruelty to children in the third degree. A person commits cruelty to children in the third degree when he is the “primary aggressor” and commits a “forcible felony, battery, or family violence battery” knowing or intending that a child under the age of 18 will witness the act. See
Sauce swore to the same supporting facts in each affidavit. When we consider the facts alleged in the affidavits, as well as the omitted facts about which Elmore complains, the universe of facts includes the following: (1) Elmore sprayed a severe and profound juvenile repeatedly about the arms and face because he was agitated that the radio was turned down; (2) Elmore used the spray to try and stop the juvenile from screaming only to further agitate him; (3) a nurse witnessed the student being sprayed and later made a complaint, but did not complain at the time; (4) Sauce‘s initial memorandum regarding the complaint stated that “Teacher” sprayed the student; (5) the classroom teacher told Sauce that Elmore did not spray the student; and (6) the nurse and a juvenile student stated that Elmore had sprayed the student.
We agree with the district court that the warrant affidavit does not establish even arguable probable cause to believe that Elmore committed the crime of cruelty to children in the third degree. The affidavit does not allege the requisite forcible felony or battery, see, e.g.,
But including the omitted facts when determining whether probable cause existed to believe that Elmore committed the offense of simple battery does not negate the probable cause that the magistrate judge found for that offense. See Madiwale, 117 F.3d at 1327. The conduct alleged fits within the definition of simple battery as intentional physical contact of a provoking nature with the person of another. See
Nor do Elmore‘s allegations provide any reason to doubt that the nurse and the student in fact identified Elmore to Sauce. The fact that the nurse “made no complaint at the time” does not, without more, undermine the nurse‘s credibility, particularly when we do not know the length of time between the incident and the complaint. As for Elmore and Ms. Morrow‘s conflicting statements, each arguably had an interest in a determination that Elmore was not involved. Thus, while we agree that it certainly would have been better for Sauce to have included the alleged inconsistencies in the warrant affidavit, consideration of the omitted material would not have precluded a finding of probable cause to believe that Elmore committed the offense of simple battery.
In any event, even if consideration of all of the facts did not establish actual probable cause for the offense of simple battery, the facts are adequate to establish arguable probable cause to believe that Elmore violated
Elmore also contends that Sauce should have disclosed to the magistrate his status an educator and the existence of educator immunity under
B. Educator Immunity under Georgia Law
Elmore asserts that the district court erroneously concluded that Elmore‘s potential immunity as an educator under Georgia law did not affect the probable-cause analysis. Under the circumstances, we find that the district court did not err.
Elmore claims immunity under
In making an assessment of probable cause, officers generally have no duty to resolve legal questions or to investigate possible defenses. See Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1356-57; cf. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145-46, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (“[W]e do not think a sheriff executing an arrest warrant is required by the Constitution to investigate independently every claim of innocence, whether the claim is based on mistaken identity or a defense such as lack of requisite intent.“); Pickens v. Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203, 1207 (11th Cir.1995) (“[P]olice officers have no responsibility to determine the viability of a statute of limitations defense when executing a valid arrest warrant.“).
For example, in Morris v. Town of Lexington, Alabama, 748 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2014), this Court recently concluded that the possible application of an affirmative defense to an assault charge did not affect whether the officers had probable cause, or at least arguable probable cause, to believe that the plaintiff had committed an assault. Id. at 1325. Similarly, in Jordan, we held that a police officer did not need to consider the application of an “apparent-authority defense” before seeking the defendant‘s arrest. Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1356-57. For that reason, we declined to address whether the defense “would have provided Plaintiff with a complete defense to the pertinent crime under Georgia law.” Id.
Elmore cites our unpublished decision in Williams v. Sirmons, 307 Fed.Appx. 354 (11th Cir.2009), where we held that “in determining whether probable cause to arrest exists, an officer must consider all facts and circumstances within that officer‘s knowledge, including facts and circumstances conclusively establishing an affirmative defense.” Id. at 358-59; see also Fridley v. Horrighs, 291 F.3d 867, 873 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[P]robable cause determinations include facts and circumstances establishing a statutorily legitimated affirmative justification for the suspected criminal act.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). According to Sirmons, “if an officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances which establish an affirmative defense, he or she lacks probable cause to arrest, even when the facts and circumstances establish that the person meets all elements of the offense.” Sirmons, 307 Fed.Appx. at 359.
Applying that standard in Sirmons, we concluded that the officers did not have even arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for fleeing from a traffic stop because, even though the plaintiff met all the elements of the offense, the officers knew of facts—like the facts that the plaintiff was pregnant, bleeding, in distress, and on her way to the hospital for emergency treatment—showing that the plaintiff‘s flight was justified by the affirmative defense of necessity or duress. Id. at 359-60. Therefore, we held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 360.
Here, however, even if we assumed that officers generally are required to consider statutory-immunity defenses in their probable-cause assessments, the application of Georgia‘s educator-immunity statute was not sufficiently established in this case. The statute provides that an educator‘s
Although Sauce knew that Elmore was an educator and that his alleged actions were arguably disciplinary in nature, Sauce had some reason to doubt that Elmore was acting in “good faith.” Specifically, the nurse made an allegation that “child abuse” had occurred in the classroom based on the spraying incident, and Sauce apparently interviewed a juvenile student who stated that Elmore had sprayed the student. Moreover, since Elmore altogether denied having sprayed the student, no one asserted that Elmore had sprayed the student in good faith. Based on these facts, we cannot say that facts known to Sauce conclusively established that Elmore was immune from criminal liability.
In this respect, Elmore‘s reliance on Cohen is misplaced. The Georgia Court of Appeals in Cohen upheld the trial court‘s grant of immunity from prosecution for simple battery, under
In any case, given the absence of binding precedent holding that statutory-immunity defenses must be considered in a probable-cause determination, particularly a defense that turns on the subjective intent of the party claiming immunity, we cannot say that the law was so clearly established as to have provided fair warning to Sauce that her failure to consider, or to inform the magistrate of, Elmore‘s potential immunity in assessing whether probable cause existed was unconstitutional. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 739, 122 S.Ct. at 2515; cf. Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1355 (“Of course, no police officer can truly know another person‘s subjective intent.“). Indeed, even Elmore concedes that Sauce may be entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claim that Sauce should have informed the magistrate of Elmore‘s potential immunity under
C. Whether Probable Cause to Arrest Bars Elmore‘s Claims
In resolving Elmore‘s claims, the district court concluded that the existence of probable cause to arrest Elmore for simple battery rendered his arrest constitutionally valid, despite the lack of probable cause for cruelty to children. The court relied on the well-established rule that the existence of probable cause does not turn on the arresting officer‘s state of mind. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 593-94, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004). So long as the circumstances known to the officers, viewed objectively, give probable cause to arrest for any crime, the arrest is constitutionally valid even if probable cause was lacking as to some offenses, or even all announced charges. Id. at 153-55, 125 S.Ct. at 593-94; Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1195-96 (11th Cir.2002).
In general terms, a warrantless arrest without probable cause provides the basis for a
By contrast, seizures following the “institution of a prosecution,” such as an arrest pursuant to a warrant, generally serve as the basis for a
Generally, in contrast to false-arrest claims, “probable cause as to one charge will not bar a malicious prosecution claim based on a second, distinct charge as to which probable cause was lacking.” Holmes v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 511 F.3d 673, 682 (7th Cir.2007) (concerning malicious prosecution under Illinois state law); Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75, 83 (3d Cir.2007); cf. Uboh v. Reno, 141 F.3d 1000, 1005 (11th Cir.1998) (conviction on some charges in indictment does not preclude malicious prosecution claim based on dismissal of other charges). In Holmes, the Seventh Circuit explained the distinction in this way: when an individual is arrested, the seizure is the same whether the arrest was based on one or multiple grounds; but once an individual is prosecuted, each additional charge imposes additional costs and burdens. Holmes, 511 F.3d at 682-83.
The district court construed Elmore‘s allegations as akin to a claim for false arrest because he complained of an arrest without probable cause and identified his claim as one for “illegal arrest.”7 Although two warrants issued, the amended complaint alleges that only one arrest occurred (“The arrest of Plaintiff was without probable cause or arguable probable cause and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.” (emphasis added)). Therefore, to the extent that Elmore challenged only the constitutionality of his arrest, the district court would not have erred in concluding that Elmore‘s arrest was constitutionally valid because it was supported by probable cause. See Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153-55, 125 S.Ct. at 593-94; Lee, 284 F.3d at 1195-96; see also Marx, 905 F.2d at 1505-06; Holmes, 511 F.3d at 682 (“An arrested individual is no more seized when he is arrested on three grounds rather than one[.]“).
Nonetheless, even assuming—as Elmore contends—that this Court‘s decision in Uboh controls this case, the amended complaint fails to allege facts necessary to state a
Here, Elmore did not allege in his amended complaint any facts establishing the common-law element of “favorable termination,” such as the charges being dropped or dismissed. Indeed, the amended complaint contains no allegations regarding a prosecution following his arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant. Cf. Whiting, 85 F.3d at 583-84 (“Whiting, however is not claiming just that he was seized unlawfully or that a warrant was issued without probable cause: he says he was ‘maliciously prosecuted’ in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.“). Even if Elmore had been unconstitutionally seized pursuant to an invalid warrant, Elmore did not allege a necessary element of a common-law malicious prosecution claim.8 See Grider, 618 F.3d at 1256. Therefore, the amended complaint fails to state a
Finally, Elmore argues that Holland, the principal of the school, is liable under
Supervisors cannot be held liable under
Here, we know from the amended complaint that Holland was the principal of the school in which Elmore worked, that Sauce was a police officer for the District, and that Holland “directed Defendant Sauce to take out a warrant against Plaintiff.” To the extent that Elmore argues that he was liable as a supervisor for ordering Elmore‘s arrest, Elmore has not alleged facts sufficient to support an inference that Holland was, in fact, Sauce‘s supervisor or that he had any authority over her. See Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724, 737 (11th Cir.2010) (affirming the grant of qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants participated in the plaintiff‘s arrest or were supervisors of the officer who arrested her). Holland also was not personally involved in Elmore‘s arrest. See id. Nor do the allegations show that, even if Holland was Sauce‘s supervisor, Holland directed Sauce to act unlawfully or knew that she would act unlawfully by, for example, omitting material information from the warrant affidavit. See Keating, 598 F.3d at 762.
VI.
In short, we affirm the district court‘s dismissal of Elmore‘s amended civil rights complaint. We conclude that Sauce is entitled to qualified immunity from Elmore‘s
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM