Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10521
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00019-RH-GRJ
BRENDA HAMILTON,
JAMES HAMILTON,
DENNIS LARAMORE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
LOUIS ROBERTS, III,
In his official capacity as Sheriff,
Jackson County, Florida,
STEPHEN SMITH,
In his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 11, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges:
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Brenda Hamilton, James Hamilton, 1 and Dennis Laramore appeal
the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellees Louis Roberts III, in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Jackson County, Florida, and Deputy Stephen
Smith, in his individual capacity, in Appellants’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law. Appellants assert the district court erred in (1) granting
qualified immunity to Deputy Smith on the Hamiltons’ excessive force claims, and
(2) granting qualified immunity to Deputy Smith on Laramore’s unlawful search
and seizure claim. After review, 2 we affirm the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Deputy Smith and Deputy Corey Finch responded to a 911 call that gunshots
were heard on Ms. Hamilton’s rural property and a dog may have been shot. Upon
their arrival at the property, Deputy Smith and Deputy Finch encountered two men
standing near a vehicle, Mr. Hamilton and a neighbor. Deputy Smith told the men
to place their hands in the air, and asked them what they were doing, and whether
they had a gun. The neighbor raised his hands and advised he had a gun.
Hamilton initially raised his hands but then lowered them. Deputy Smith
again ordered Hamilton to raise his hands but Mr. Hamilton shouted that “[he]
1
James Hamilton is Brenda Hamilton’s father.
2
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. K.A. ex rel. F.A. v.
Fulton Cty. Sch. Dist., 741 F.3d 1195, 1210 (11th Cir. 2013).
2
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 3 of 8
own[ed] this land and you sons of bitches are trespassing.” Mr. Hamilton then
started advancing toward the deputies who backed up until they were behind one of
the patrol cars. The deputies repeatedly told Mr. Hamilton to stop and to keep his
hands up or they would shoot. Mr. Hamilton kept walking toward the deputies,
insisting they were on his land and did not have a right to be there, until he too got
behind the patrol car with the deputies. At this point, Deputy Smith handcuffed
Mr. Hamilton. Deputy Smith then retrieved the neighbor’s loaded firearm from his
waistband and a loaded revolver from the seat of the vehicle against which the men
had been leaning.
After Mr. Hamilton was handcuffed, Ms. Hamilton arrived at the property.
She got out of the car holding a bottle of Bud Light in her left hand and a Smith
and Wesson .38 Special in her right hand. She walked quickly toward the deputies
and her father asking what the deputies were doing to him. As she was
approaching her father and the deputies, Deputy Smith drew his firearm and told
her he was going to shoot her and ordered her to drop the gun. Ms. Hamilton
stopped advancing but refused to drop the gun. After Deputy Smith again ordered
her to drop the gun, Ms. Hamilton finally dropped the gun at her feet. At that time,
Deputy Smith slung Mr. Hamilton into the hood of the car and moved to subdue
Ms. Hamilton. Simultaneously, Ms. Hamilton dropped to the ground. Deputy
Smith stuck his knee in Ms. Hamilton’s back, handcuffed her, “snatched [her] up
3
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 4 of 8
. . . and shoved [her] in [a patrol car].” Deputy Finch retrieved Ms. Hamilton’s
weapon and secured it in his vehicle.
Shortly thereafter, Dennis Laramore arrived in his truck and parked 50 yards
away from the patrol cars. Laramore got out of his truck and walked toward the
patrol cars when Sergeant Bruce Ward (who had arrived to assist with the
investigation) told Laramore to “[s]top right there.” Laramore stopped, put his
hands up, and stated, “I’m the one that called.” Ward sarcastically remarked, “[i]s
that supposed to mean something to me?” Thereafter, Laramore and Sergeant
Ward exchanged words, with Laramore telling Sergeant Ward to talk to him like a
human or arrest him or “I’m just going to whip your ass.”
Sergeant Ward asked Laramore if he had any firearms in his truck and
Laramore responded he had two, but told Ward not to touch them unless he had a
search warrant. Deputy Smith retrieved one .22 caliber rifle and secured it in his
patrol car. Smith missed the .22 pistol in the seat. When Ward advised he was
going to handcuff him, Laramore said “[y]ou do it, make your arrest, because your
ass is mine then.” Laramore was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car.
The Hamiltons and Laramore were released from custody with no charges
filed. The officers searched the area and found Ms. Hamilton’s dogs uninjured,
and found no evidence of anyone having been on Ms. Hamilton’s property. The
deputies returned the neighbor’s two guns at the scene. Suspecting that Ms.
4
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 5 of 8
Hamilton and Laramore had been drinking, the deputies retained their guns and
placed them in evidence at the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. Ms. Hamilton and
Laramore were given property receipts for the weapons, which they retrieved from
the Sheriff’s Office the following day.
II. DISCUSSION
Qualified immunity protects governmental actors performing discretionary
duties from civil liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established
constitutional or statutory right. Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th
Cir. 2009). “In order to receive qualified immunity, the public official must first
prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the
allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Id. (quotations omitted). In this case, it is not
disputed that Deputy Smith was performing discretionary duties when responding
to a report of shots fired at Ms. Hamilton’s property.
“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary
authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not
appropriate.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). In evaluating
whether the plaintiff has met his burden, we ask “whether taken in the light most
favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show that
Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right? If so, the second
question is whether the right, be it constitutional or statutory, was clearly
5
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 6 of 8
established.” Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quotation, internal citation, and alterations omitted).
A. Hamiltons’ Excessive Force Claims
The Hamiltons assert the district court erred in granting qualified immunity
to Deputy Smith on their excessive force claims. In an excessive force case,
whether a constitutional violation occurred is governed by the Fourth
Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.
194, 197 (2004). Our cases identify several factors instructive in determining
whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable, including “(1) the
need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the
amount of force used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted and, (4) whether the
force was applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically.” Slicker v.
Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted).
The district court found the facts, for summary judgment purposes as
follows:
The officers responded to a report of shots fired. Before they could
sort out the situation, they were met with armed individuals, including
two who resisted the officers’ lawful commands. The two were
verbally belligerent. One carried a handgun and refused, at least for a
time, to put it down. The officers detained the individuals who
resisted their lawful commands, using force of a kind that ordinarily
attends an arrest.
6
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 7 of 8
The district court concluded Deputy Smith did not use constitutionally excessive
force, and even if the force was excessive, Deputy Smith was entitled to qualified
immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly established law. After
thorough review, we agree and affirm the district court.
First, the Hamiltons have cited no case, nor have we found a case, that
addresses facts similar to the ones in this case. Second, the use of force in this case
was objectively reasonable. It was not unconstitutional for Deputy Smith to shove
Mr. Hamilton aside so he could deal with Ms. Hamilton, who was refusing to drop
her gun while approaching an officer. It was also not unconstitutional for Deputy
Smith to take control of Ms. Hamilton, who had shown a willingness to hold onto
her gun when told to drop it. The force used on the Hamiltons was reasonable
under the circumstances.
B. Laramore’s Search and Seizure Claim
Laramore asserts the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to
Deputy Smith on his search and seizure claim. Officers conducting a short
investigative detention may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect
their personal safety. See United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir.
2001).
The district court found the following:
Here the officers were dealing with armed and unruly individuals
following a report of shots fired. It was dark; individuals continued to
7
Case: 17-10521 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Page: 8 of 8
arrive; the officers were outnumbered and could not know if more
individuals would be arriving; the situation was in flux. The officers
understandably wished to control the guns at the scene.
The district court concluded there was no clearly established law governing a
situation in which an officer enters an unlocked vehicle to seize guns while the
guns’ owner is nearby. And in any case, the officer could reasonably believe it
necessary to enter the truck and seize any guns to protect the officers and the
public. We agree that there was neither a constitutional violation nor any clearly
established law governing this situation, and affirm the district court’s grant of
qualified immunity to Deputy Smith.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 3
AFFIRMED.
3
Appellants’ other arguments require little discussion. Their appeal of the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to the Sheriff fails. As there was no constitutional
deprivation shown, they could show no custom or policy of the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office
allowing for such deprivation.
Appellants also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their state law
assault and battery claims. Their arguments are meritless.
8