CA11: The lack of even arguable PC for ptf’s arrest denies the officer QI

This is a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. “The district court, upon a close analysis of the elements of the crimes alleged, determined that the facts proffered by Detective Brashears are insufficient to establish probable cause, or even arguable probable cause, to arrest the Pierces. Accordingly, the district court denied him qualified immunity on the Pierces’ constitutional claims. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned order and affirm the denial of qualified immunity to Detective Brashears on the Pierces’ claim of malicious prosecution.” Pierce v. Clayton County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36497 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019).*

A furtive movement and a “conspicuously raised floormat” were reasonable suspicion. The sudden furtive movement was actually probable cause. United States v. McGhee, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36505 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.