CA11: “[T]he presence of contradictory evidence does not bar a finding of probable cause”; It must refute it

“[T]he presence of contradictory evidence does not bar a finding of probable cause.” It must refute it. Scott v. City of Miami, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14381 (11th Cir. June 11, 2025):

Moreover, the presence of contradictory evidence does not bar a finding of probable cause. See Paez, 915 F.3d at 1286 (“So long as it is reasonable to conclude from the body of evidence as a whole that a crime was committed, the presence of some conflicting evidence or a possible defense will not vitiate a finding of probable cause.”). “Because ‘probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts,’ a police officer need not resolve conflicting evidence in a manner favorable to the suspect.” Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4th 891, 902 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 588 (2018)). An officer is “not required to believe [exculpatory evidence] or to weigh the evidence in such a way as to conclude that probable cause did not exist.” Id. “The probable cause decision, by its nature, is hard to undermine, and still harder to reverse.” Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 339 (2014) (discussing the standard in the grand jury setting). Ultimately, probable cause will only be vitiated if the exculpatory evidence “did not merely make it less likely probable cause existed but obviously and irrefutably established that it didn’t exist.” Davis, 78 F.4th at 1343 (emphasis added).