Mary Lois Tillman v. Edward Coley, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Bleckley County, Ga.
886 F.2d 317
11th Cir.
1989
Check Treatment

*1 least, or, might appear McDaniel was by personal

be motivated vindictiveness in- concern; public alleged

stead of minor; relatively

crime was impor- keeping judicial separate

tance of office prosecutorial functions was far-reach- crucial;

ing and loyalty, willing- and that instructions, comply

ness to with and an

appreciation for the sensitive of em- nature

ployment necessary at a court of law were

qualities someone who was to act

judge’s secretary confidential if office his operate effectively.

was to

Because we conclude that a amend- first analysis inevitably would not lead to Judge

the conclusion that Woodard’s dis-

charge unlawful, of McDaniel was we hold Woodard is entitled immuni-

ty. Wе REVERSE the district court’s or- denying summary judgment

der and RE- proceedings

MAND for further consistent opinion.

with this TILLMAN, Lois

Plaintiff-Appellee, COLEY, Jr., Individually

Edward and in capacity

his official as Sheriff of Bleck

ley County, Ga., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-8065.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. *2 that. So I take her would Easterlin, nick. I told a Ellis, Peagler, M. George ‍​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍me the bill, she handed a Ga., $5 I handed her Americus, Gatewood, for Peagler, & exchange. She envelope in coin yellow defendant-appellant. dope. good were some it stated that [sic] Strell, E. Atlan- Polonsky, Jane K. Louis a.m. 10-19-85—12:35 ta, Ga., plaintiff-appellee. for police sale, undercover the Following the and Coley’s home went to Sheriff officer the transaction. reported Judges, and District Before Judge. FAY ALLGOOD, Senior and HATCHETT, Circuit [*] ty “Tilma,” Sheriff all his life He knew and Coley has lived he and has been only one knew that she in Mary Tillman or Bleckley sheriff lived with Coun- since from 300 feet 200 to family a trailer her in Judge: HATCHETT, Circuit impor- marijuana sale. Most the site of the that court ruled the district In this however, that he realized tantly, Georgia, County, Bleckley the Sheriff time, match did at the not forty-one age, summary judgment entitled was in Mary “Tilma” described age of thе the defense on a based report. the incident a arrest of the caused sheriff the where 1985, January 19, identification. Between October purpose of the for person steps to no affirm. We F.Supp. 1571. he whether the determine the from woman whom was the same knew I. FACTS the purchased had police officer Jr., supervised an Coley, Edward he had During period marijuana. this Bleckley in operation drug identity.1 her in mind” about “doubts [his] September, County, Georgia, between Coley person- January On 19, 1985, October January, 1986. On for the undercover affidavit ally typed an po- midnight, an undercover shortly after a warrant sign obtain pоlice officer mari- amount of bought a small lice officer arrest. Sheriff Mary Tillman’s who identified young woman from a juana issued who magistrate not inform did Immediately af- Mary Tillman. as herself concerning doubts of his the arrest warrant transaction, police the undercover ter the discrepancy. age report in written which completed a 17, 1986, “Mary January Til- On the seller’s name he noted arrested direction, personnel office sheriff ma”: at the Upon her arrival Mary Tillman. this buy my first I.A.: This for the un- Coley sent county jail, Sheriff jean’s blue wore [sic] female. She black under- When the police officer. dercover top. She hаs short pullover purple arrived, immediately cover about Looked to be hair. straight black person who was not the that she I stated complexion lbs. 24. Dark —5’5—140 marijuana. Sheriff him the sold car, I spotted when sitting in was she was told her Tillman and apologized to and asked her over I called her. leaving, she was go. As Tillman replied free holding. She she were what [sic] * your any mind that doubts Allgood, Dis- Senior U.S. W. Clarence Honorable marijuana Hal- to Officer Ala- that had sold District of Northern Tillman trict bama, you knew? that by designation. Tillman sitting was liburton doubts, say weren’t no there A. I wouldn’t Coley testified: deposition, Sheriff 1. In age an difference. there we was knew age we had far as the I knew as A. we only just was description, as the other As far difference. knew, you’ve got you know and when very, very similar. doubts, difference, you’ve got to got you’ve know, you identified, you so get this being issued for Q. Prior Tillman, Coley, you, know. did aof arrest personnel Medical fainted. took Tillman The issue before us is whether Tillman’s hospital local she lawsuit is quali- ambulance where barred the doctrine of days. treatment remained for for three fied immunity.

II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY IV.DISCUSSION pursuant filed this lawsuit 42 prove Tillman must that she was de- against Coley alleg- U.S.C. 1983 Sheriff § prived of a constitutionally guaranteed ing procured that he her arrest without right under color of state law to succeed in probable cause to believe she commit- this pursuant civil action to 42 U.S.C. Coley ted an offense. Sheriff moved for 1983.2 527, Taylor, Parratt v. 451 § U.S. summary judgment contending that 535, 1908, 1913, 101 S.Ct. 68 L.Ed.2d 420 against lawsuit him was barred doc- (1981), on grounds, overruled Dan- qualified trine immunity. of The district Williams, 327, iels v. 474 U.S. 106 S.Ct. Coley’s court holding dеnied Sheriff motion 662, (1986). 88 L.Ed.2d 662 reasonably competent that “no enforce- law “A district court’s denial of a claim of ment would have concluded that a qualified immunity, to the extent it turns warrant should have issued for arrest law, on an issue appealable of is an ‘final Tillman,” of the plaintiff, espe- Lois decision’ the mеaning within of 28 U.S.C. cially personal when the officer had knowl- 129, notwithstanding the absence of § a edge of Tillman and of the discrepancy. judgment.” final Forsyth, Mitchell v. 472 The district court also found that 511, 530, 2806, U.S. 2817, 86 Coley had admitted he lacked (1985). L.Ed.2d 411 The court reviews cause to believe Tillman was the seller of district court’s denial of a summary judg- marijuana, and that he obtained the ment motion qualified immunity based on merely identify her. Evans, de Waldrop novo. v. 871 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.1989). Qualified immunity is de- III.CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES fined in Fitzgerald, Harlow v. 457 U.S. Coley 2727, (1982), contends 102 that the district 73 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 396 improperly court Supreme denied his where the motion for Court held that summary judgment “government undisputed because the performing offiсials discre- tionary facts generally ‍​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍do demonstrate a constitutional functions are shielded violation. further from liability damages contends that for civil insofar as even his conduct their clearly if violated Tillman’s conduct does not violate estab- rights, fourth amendment statutory rights he is shielded lished or constitutional of liability by doctrine of which a reasonable should have known.” 457 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at 2738 added). (emphasis Tillman contends that Sheriff un- constitutionally procured the war- clearly arrest concedes that estab- identify rant in order her or to requires probable eliminate lished law sup- cause to suspect. She port arguеs also contends that the doc- properly court district denied qualified immunity trine of govern- shields summary motion for judgment liability from civil long officials “as based on because no as their reasonably actions could law pos- thought reasonable enforcement rights with the they consistent are sessing Coley’s knowlеdge of alleged the matter to have violated.” v. Anderson applied would 635, 638, for an arrest Creighton, warrant. 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. provides pertinent part: 1983 in Section immunities secured laws, the Constitution and who, Every person any party injured under shall liable to the color stat- in an of ute, ordinance, custom, law, regulation, usage, equity, proper or action at suit in or other any subjects, ... State or to be causes proceeding for redress. subjected, any citizen of the United States ... (1982). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deprivation any rights, privileges,

320 in arrest- if mistake immunity only the fied 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d Hill “reasonable.” party is ing the second appropri- recently found that the court 797, 91 S.Ct. California, allegation unlawful for an standard ate (mistake (1971) reasonable 28 L.Ed.2d 484 reasonably “a well- arrest is whether circumstances). under [appellant’s] position trained officer failed that his affidavit have known he rea Coley asserts that he probable cause and to establish cause exist sonаbly believed applied for the warrant.” should not have support the warrant ed to Georgia, Lumpkin County, Garmon complexion of the sus height, weight, and Cir.1989) (11th (citing F.2d re police officer’s in the undercover pect *4 335, 345, 106 475 U.S. Malley Briggs, v. Mary of Till matched those port generally (1986)). In 1092,1098, 271 89 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. man; within two the transaction occurred thе Garmon, denied the sheriff the court home; feet of Tillman’s to three hundred his ina- immunity defense because qualified only one Coley knew and Sheriff abduction, as evidence of an bility to find Tillman in that area. alleged, not reason- plaintiff had could the Coley’s claim of of Resolution affirmative evidence аbly have constituted immunity de- qualified under protection report a false of plaintiff the had made reasonably whether a well-trained pends on crime. in the under- with the information Dollar, v. Coley argues that Rich report and with his police cover officer’s (11th Cir.1988) supports his F.2d 1558 841 identity would suspect’s the doubts about It dоes not. claim of probable cause did not have known that Dollar, granted quali- the court In Rich v. Coley deposi- in his exist. Sheriff testified attorney’s investi- immunity for a state fied tion as follows: probable because it found that gator not Q: that there was suf- your claim [I]s because it cause existed point to the ficient identification that the investi- insufficient evidence found living Thompson at 421 Street as arrest; consequently, the gator had caused Mary Tillman who sold under- being the qualified immunity as “entitled to he was marijuana the cover officer Halliburton scope of his acting within the public official 19, 1985? on October discretionary authority.” F.2d at 1566. 841 thought saying I’m I SHERIFF COLEY: police officer if the undercover In this enough probable cause for us there defendant, might control. were the Rich identify her because of bring her in to Rich, distinguishable from case is weight, complexion, prox- the height, her however, Coley caused because Sheriff went down and imity of whеre the sale and the ar- of the arrest warrant issuance enough for I felt like there was so on. rest.3 bring if that was the to see us person. support our hold reported All cases that Sheriff The facts demonstrate Coley is not entitled to the ing that Sheriff investigation that without further probable believed immunity defense. probable he had age discrepancy, an arrest into required to obtain cause standard a warrant for cause to obtain protect a shield to citi stands as purpose of The arrest was for and inva arrest. the emotional distress zens from twenty-four- determining if she was by Tillman in this privacy suffered sion of drugs tо the States, person who had sold year-old 338 U.S. Brinegar case. v. United words, police In other officer. L.Ed. 1879 S.Ct. 93 69 purpose of was for the sole arresting a second the arrest mistakenly An officer Mc Arrington party identification. of the first party when the arrest Cf. Cir.1986) (6th (quali- Donald, 808 F.2d 466 protected by quali- may valid would be prоved Rich's involve- direct evidence its hold- erable in Rich did not base 3. While the court gem marketing alleged fraudulent in an ing arrest, cause existed for the on whether suggests F.2d at 1561. opinion that consid- scheme. 841 the court’s

321 satisfy fied not available when requirement cause identification). purpose arrested the fourth obtaining amendment in the ar- police rest warrant. A reasonable This is not a case where time was of the sufficiently concerned in making essence the arrest. Brine- See age discrepancy generation of a supra, (probable at 177 gar, U.S. cause make further investigation as to whether depends determination on the circumstanc Tillman he knew had es). daughter had at least three least, or a very niece.4 At the Coley could months to resolve his Till doubts about inquired ‍​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍of the police offi- identity. man’s Because of the doubts he cer harbored, whether the seller could have been clоs- actions were not er forty years age. Valez, light reasonable. In See United States (2d Cir.1986), denied, discrepancy, 796 F.2d cert. could not rely solely on his police 93 L.Ed.2d own or a fellow (1987) (information casting correct, officer’s belief doubt on name was identity only or that relevant determination of one Tillman lived or reasonableness). addition, visited in the area. In the under- cover officer could have identified Although the law does *5 require not Mary Tillman suspect as the in a “stake- every step taken, “that conceivable home, work, out” of her or her through cost, possibility whatever to eliminate the purсhase. another convicting person,” pro innocent due require steps cess does that some be taken to concerning identity eliminate doubts V. CONCLUSION prior obtaining exist to the warrant and to hold that while the absence of We McCollan, arrest. Baker v. probable cause always will not defeat а 99 S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d 433 The defense, no reasonable Supreme United States Court found in law may enforcement officer conclude that plaintiff

Baker v. that the McCollan an arrest may be obtained and an facially been arrested on a valid warrant. arrest made for purpose the sole of iden In that Sheriff Bakеr had no doubts tifying suspect. The order of the district plaintiff’s identity about at the time he denying summary court judgment is af plaintiff. arrested the Plaintiff’s claim was firmed. not based on a fourth amendment violation AFFIRMED. probable lacking cause was for his identification, faulty arrest due to but on

his continued detention after he had assеrt FAY, Judge, Circuit dissenting: ed his innocence. The Court found that Most respectfully, I dissent. suspect once a is arrested under a warrant accurately Hatchett has set forth both the supported by cause, a sheriff need facts and the applying law. When the test “investigate independently every claim of whether or not Coley reasonably 145-46, of innocence.” 443 atU.S. could have believed that cause at 2695. existed for the warrant and how- ever,

Sheriff Baker relied on a valid ar I come to a different conclusion. The warrant, by rest sworn to another law en part arrest of Tillman was a of a forcement offiсer. Under the rationale in large operation. McCollan,

Baker operating relying upon was not was and informa- required investigate every relayed claim of inno tion to him an undercover offi- Tillman; cence raised brought but he was re jurisdiction. cer in from another quired investigate his own serious That information indicated to him that regarding suspect’s identity doubts probably was involved. The investigation suspect 4. Further revealed that the door to Tillman. living Tillman’s niece who was next district influenced may have fact that home and very close ‍​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍place sale convinces record My review of the only judge. description matched. physical in favor ruling requires that the law age factor. me was the discrepancy Coley on the basis of Sheriff argues, appellee’s counsel suggest, To ruling of immunity. I would vacate Coley knew that that Sheriff entry of sum- court and direct district in such activities engage never sheriff. of the mary judgment favоr official enforcement No law nonsense. subjective on such operate or could should ignore the facts completely

belief are aware we

reality. Regrettably, now trans- narcotics illegal drug abuse of our segments all pervaded have

actions unimpressive to equally society. It seems COMPANY, H. & LANDAU should argue me to Plaintiff-Appellant, gone with attempted an- neighborhood and seller of the identification STATES, The UNITED recognized the might have dope. Someone Defendant-Appellee. operation. entire disrupted the sheriff No. 89-1199. he could did the best that The sheriff United States Appeals, Court of upon He relied under the circumstances. Federal Circuit. him for all the arrest given the information He made certain also warrants. Sept. *6 imme- was available As Amended on Rehearing Grant proper individu- diate confirmation 11,1989. Dec. station. being brought into the als were mistakenly majority me It seems long- being a Coley for

penalizing resident, county with familiar his

time Applying objective test

its inhabitants. causе, one existence question conclusion. his

seriously cannot to a trained sale a hand-to-hand gave her name seller as ‍​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‍officer. The Tilma, similar-sounding name. or a place a few hundred feet

The sale physical home. The Mary Tillman’s of the seller matched

characteristics transaction when the It was dark

Tillman.

occurred, officer was the undercover Tillman. area with the

not familiar Coley would me that Sheriff

It seems he guilty of misfeasance for the ar- to obtain warrant

attempted is entitled

rest of protection that Sher- district court finding he lacked Coley admitted

iff conceded clearly erroneous

cause is argument. Since the during oral

counsel finding, it rely upon this does not

majority than the significance, great

is not of