Pruitt v. Gillespie
ORDER granting 17 Defendant Gillespie's Motion for Summary Judgment as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/3/2015. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
FRANCIS PAXTEN PRUITT,
DEPUTY KRISTEN GILLESPIE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00640-KD-M
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs.
17-20), Plaintiff’s Response (Docs. 25, 27-28) and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 30).
Plaintiff Francis Paxten Pruitt (Pruitt), initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging three (3) federal claims against Defendant Deputy Kristen Gillespie (Gillespie), in her
individual capacity, for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights due to: 1) false arrest; 2)
malicious prosecution; and 3) business invasion/unlawful search of a business. (Doc. 1).
Pruitt operated a check cashing business in a room connected to Buck’s Country Store
(Buck’s), a convenience store/gas station in Mobile County, Mobile, Alabama.
(Dep. Pruitt at 19, 21-24)). Pruitt’s business had a separate entrance and operated completely
separately from Buck’s. (Id.) Pruitt had a business arrangement with Buck’s through which he
rented the front room and paid them a percentage of his net every month. (Id. at 19-20).
1 On summary judgment, the Court must “resolve all issues of material fact in favor of the [non-movant],
and then determine the legal question of whether the [movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under that
version of the facts.” McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2004).
Gillespie was a Deputy Sheriff with the Mobile County Sheriff’s Office, a Corporal, and
a Detective in the White Collar Crimes Unit. (Doc. 19-2 at 2 (Aff. Gillespie)).
This litigation stems from Pruitt and Gillespie’s December 30, 2011 interaction. On that
day, Pruitt tried to effect a citizen’s arrest against an individual he believed was passing
fraudulent checks at his business. As a result, Pruitt was arrested by Gillespie for unlawful
imprisonment and menacing, which was later upgraded to robbery in the first degree.
Specifically, on December 29, 2011, Buck’s employee Kenyetta Gilmore McCarty
(McCarty)2 cashed two (2) Whitney Bank checks for an individual named Roderick Jones (Jones)
for $2,300. (Doc. 19-2 at 14 (McCarty’s Witness Statement)). The next day, December 30,
2011, Pruitt – after conferring with McCarty -- cashed four (4) Whitney Bank checks for three
(3) individuals who were accompanied by Jones. (Id.)3 After they left the store, Pruitt called the
bank number on the checks provided, learned they did not belong to Whitney Bank, and looked
on-line and saw that there was not a Whitney Bank at the address on the checks. (Id.) From this,
Pruitt concluded the checks were forgeries. (Id.) Pruitt asked McCarty how she knew the
individuals; she explained that she had cashed Jones’ check the prior day and had Jones’ number.
McCarty called Jones asking him to return to the store, telling him that her car needed to be
jumped (which was true). (Doc. 19-2 at 14 (McCarty’s Witness Statement)).4 Pruitt admits that
he “lured” Jones back to the store. (Doc. 27 at 5).
After Jones arrived, Pruitt entered Buck’s, where Buck’s employees McCarty and
Maletta Monigan (Monigan) had been working, and at that point, Pruitt’s “Glock was out and
2 When she assisted Pruitt, she worked as an independent contractor for his check cashing business (while
she worked for the store, she helped Pruitt sometimes as needed). (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 22-26)).
3 Doc. 28-2 at 3-5; Doc. 28-5.
4 McCarty also had plans to go on a date with Jones that evening. (Id.)
pointed down at arm’s length as [he]…went in the door.” (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 92)).5
McCarty and Jones were in the back left corner of Buck’s, so Pruitt called out to Jones and said
“we need to talk.” (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 93)). Jones approached Pruitt, who was standing in front
of the Buck’s front door. (Id.) Jones “came charging around the aisles” towards Pruitt “but
stopped when he got about six feet from where I stood.” (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 94-95)). Pruitt told
Jones “those checks we cashed…and those girls were no good.” (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 95)). Jones
responded that he did not cash any checks and Pruitt told him he did and that he had vouched for
the girls. (Id.) Jones repeated that he did not cash any checks. (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 95)).
Pruitt then yelled at McCarty and Monigan to call 911. (Id.)
Jones then “basically confessed. He said, okay, man, like, yeah, I cashed those checks
here” and then asked to go out to his truck to retrieve his phone. (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 102)).
Pruitt told Jones he “wasn’t going anywhere. He had stolen from me and he wasn’t going
anywhere.” (Id.) Pruitt told Jones there were six (6) checks totaling over $6,500 plus whatever
the total was from that evening at issue, stating: “this was way serious. I was upset and shaking. I
didn’t like being put through all of this. He [Jones] got down on his knees [on all fours] saying
calm down and let’s talk.” (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 103)). Jones said he needed to make a call and
Pruitt told Monigan to retrieve Jones’ phone from his truck. (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 104)). Monigan
then handed the phone to Jones and he called someone stating they “needed to get the money
back together and bring it up to the store.” (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 106)).
5 McCarty reported that Pruitt had a gun in his hand but did not point it up at Jones. (Doc. 19-2 at 14
(McCarty’s Witness Statement)).
At the time, Pruitt had not heard from the bank and had not yet been informed that Jones’
checks were, in fact, fraudulent or “no good,” that was only confirmed after the December 30th
incident and after Pruitt’s arrest. (Id. (Dep. Pruitt at 115-116)).
Gillespie was dispatched, along with another detective Clifton Holifield (Holifield), to
Buck’s after being told a suspect was trying to cash a bad check at the business. (Doc. 19-2 at 2
(Aff. Gillespie)). When they arrived, there were already several officers on site and Gillespie
was told they had been dispatched for “a call that a robbery was occurring with a black male
dressed in all black who had entered the store armed with a gun.” (Id.) According to Gillespie:
The Mobile County Sheriffs Deputies told me that the call was made by a female clerk at
the convenience store. They advised that when they arrived there was no robbery in
progress and that the owner of a check cashing business located at the store, later
identified as Francis Paxton Pruitt was holding at gun point a black male suspect of
attempting to pass a bad check. The Deputies advised me that when they arrived on the
scene they observed on the scene they observed Mr. Pruitt holding a black firearm in his
right hand down by his side. They also advised that the black male suspect, later
identified as Roderick Jones, was not armed with any weapon or gun.
After speaking with the Deputies Sheriffs on site I along with Det. Holifield interviewed
Mr. Jones, Mr. Pruitt and two (2) females at the scene.
Based upon our investigation we determined that Mr. Jones had not attempted to rob the
store or Mr. Pruitt or any other party at the scene and further, the Jones had not come to
the business and attempted to pass a bad check.
Roderick Jones stated that one of the females, Kenyetta Gilmore, who was later identified
as a clerk at the store, called Mr. Jones claiming she had car trouble and asking for his
help. When he arrived at the store he went inside and spoke with Ms. Gilmore. He stated
that while he was at the back of the store a white male (Mr. Pruitt) came from somewhere
in the store and pointed a handgun at him and began yelling at him to retrieve his, Mr.
Pruitt's, Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) that Pruitt claimed to get three (3) females
who had cashed checks at the business earlier to come to the store and to bring his Eight
Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) or else he, Mr. Jones, was going to die. Jones said that
Pruitt pointed a gun at him demanding his money and told him that he, Mr. Jones, was
going to leave the store dead or in jail. Jones further stated that Pruitt would not let him
leave the store to make a phone call.
Jones told me and Det. Holifield that Pruitt had pointed a gun at him until the Deputies
arrived on the scene and that he believed that Pruitt was going to kill him and that he, Mr.
Jones, was in fear for his life….
We also interviewed Mayetta Monigan. Monigan told us that Pruitt had yelled for her to
call 911 stating that he was about to be robbed. She told us that she was on the phone
with Pruitt while he was waiting outside behind the rear of the business. He said that
Pruitt advised her to tell him when Jones was finished looking at the car and was inside
Monigan told us that Gilmore and Jones entered the business, she advised Pruitt that
Jones was inside the business and that Pruitt then came in the business.
She told us that she heard Pruitt yelling at Jones for Jones to give him, Mr. Pruitt, his
Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00). She said that she saw Pruitt with a black handgun
in his hand at that Pruitt would not let Jones leave the store.
She told us that Pruitt pointed the handgun at Jones stating for him to give him his
"fuckin money". She stated that she went outside and retrieved Jones' cell phone and that
Jones attempted to call someone while Pruitt continued to yell at him. …
We also interviewed Kenyetta Gilmore. Gilmore told us that she had been contacted
by Pruitt that day and advised that Pruitt had cashed some checks for some females who
were introduced to him by Mr. Jones.
She advised us that Pruitt had asked her to contact Jones and see if she could convince
him to return to the store so he could get his money back. She told us she did contact
Jones and asked him to come back to the store because she needed her vehicle jumped
She told us that Pruitt was waiting outside in the rear of the business for Jones to arrive.
She said that once she entered the store Pruitt came inside and began yelling at Jones
about his money. She confirmed that Pruitt had a handgun in his hand but she stated that
she did not see Pruitt point the gun at Jones.
She also confirmed that Pruitt had told her and the other clerk to call 911 and to say that
he was about to be robbed. She said that during the entire time Pruitt had a gun in his
hand and was continuously yelling at Jones….
We also interviewed Mr. Pruitt. Based upon his answers I did not believe that he gave
direct answers and further, that he gave inconsistent statements about the events that
occurred. Pruitt advised us that he thought Jones had cashed some counterfeit checks but
when asked he stated that he had not heard back from the bank at that time as to whether
the checks were worthless.
He told us that it was Ms. Gilmore who made the suggestion to lure Jones back to the
business. He told us that the reason he moved his truck to the back of the store was that
he had money in the truck. He also told us that Jones had come charging toward him.
After collecting the information from the other Deputies and people on the scene I
contacted one of my Superiors, Lt. Paul Burch, and advised him of what I had learned.
After conferring with Lt. Burch I placed Pruitt under arrest for unlawful imprisonment
I then called the on-call District Attorney, Nicki Patterson, and after advising her of the
facts I have set out above, she advised to change the charge to robbery 1st degree.
(Doc. 19-2 at 3-6 (Aff. Gillespie)).
Pruitt’s version of December 30, 2011 is as follows:
I never told Jones to get me my money or I would shoot him. I told Jones in (so many
words) that we had called the police and we would wait for them and the police were
on their way.
I never told Jones he was going to die.
Gilmore cashed 6 bogus checks (including 2 from Mr. Jones) on December 29, 2011. I
deposited the checks and saw that they were listed as Knights True Craftsman Payroll
checks. I cashed more 4 bogus checks (Knights True Craftsman) on December 30,
2011 and realized that the checks were from the same people and banks.
Based on my telling Monigan or Gilmore or both of them to call the police, they
arrived before Gillespie and had Mr. Jones in handcuffs and were preparing to take
him to town when Gillespie showed up.
I held Jones with a gun at my side and told Jones he could not leave the store.
I advised the police that I believed that Jones had cashed some counterfeit checks
along with the others and I got Jones back to my shop (he had just left) in order to
The police who arrived before Gillespie arrived, arrested Mr. Jones on my
statement, their search of Jones' truck and on the bogus checks that I gave them and
more bogus checks they got out of Jones' truck (according to the police). They had
him in cuffs when Gillespie arrived on the scene.
On December 30, 2011, I was cashing checks at my office in Bucks Country Store,
when about 6:30 PM three females and Jones came in wanting to cash four checks on
Knights True Craftsman . These were the same kind of checks on Whitney Bank that I
had seen just the night before when I was making the deposit to Capstone Bank.
Kenyetta (Gilmore) happened to be in the store when the three girls and Jones came
in. I called over to Kenyetta in the store and asked if we had cashed these checks
before and if they were good. She said yes, and the guy in the store (that I later
learned was Roderick Jones) spoke up saying these girls were fire watches working
with him up at TK for Knights Marine. As I cashed the checks for the girls, I became
suspicious based on their appearance and their coy conversation with me. Right after
the [sic] left, I asked if someone in the store could get their car license number.
Donna Vickers a co-worker of Kenyetta’s at her morning job went out to get it, but
she came back in saying they were driving off as she went out the door. I had the girls
call 911 when Jones came back .
Four of the bogus checks were given to the officers that arrested Mr. Roderick Jones
when they arrived. Gillespie let Mr. Jones go and instead arrested me for menacing
and banishing a weapon (or something like that, emphasis added) which was then
dropped and ungraded to robbery, which was then no-billed by the grand jury.
I was arrested by warrant instigated by Gillespie for robbery.
(Doc. 28-3 at 2-3 (Decltn. Pruitt)).
Thus, the parties dispute how Pruitt was displaying his Glock firearm, whether he
threatened Jones’ life, how he communicated with Jones during the incident, and a few other
items. For reasons explained below, these factual disputes, however, are not dispositive to the
issues in this case because the facts, for purposes of summary judgment, are taken in the light
most favorable to Pruitt and even when doing so, do not support his claims as a matter of law.
Regarding the arrest, Gillespie contacted one of the Officers in her chain of command, Lt.
Paul Burch and advised him of the situation. (Doc. 19-2 (Aff. Gillespie)). After conferring with
Lt. Burch, and after conducting an interview with Pruitt, on December 30, 2011, she placed
Pruitt under arrest for unlawful imprisonment and menacing. (Id.) (Doc. 30-1 (Transcript of
Police Interview)). At some point later, Gillespie contacted the on-call District Attorney and was
advised to charge Pruitt with robbery instead. (Doc. 19-2 (Aff. Gillespie)).
On January 4, 2012, Gillespie returned to the business to retrieve video footage from that
night. (Doc. 19-2 (Aff. Gillespie)). The video cameras were not owned by Pruitt but instead
were the property of Buck’s. (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 25-29)). The video monitors from which
Gillespie obtained copies of the videos were located not in the check cashing business but in the
Buck’s. (Id.) Gillespie took a photograph of some names and phone numbers which were on a
refrigerator located in the Buck’s office. (Doc. 19-2 (Aff. Gillespie)). The store clerks gave
consent for Gillespie to review the video tape and make copies of the film related to the incident
in question. (Id.)
On January 9, 2012, after Pruitt had been arrested for unlawful imprisonment and
menacing, a warrant was issued for Pruitt for robbery in the first degree. (Doc. 28-4 at 2). Also
on this date, a complaint was filed against Pruitt in the District Court of Mobile County for
robbery in the first degree. (Id. at 3). Pruitt waived his preliminary hearing and the robbery in
the first degree charge against him was bound over to the Grand Jury. (Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at
127-131)). Jones failed to appear at the Grand Jury and in September 2013, the Grand Jury “nobilled” the robbery charge against Pruitt. (Doc. 19-2 (Aff. Gillespie)).
Standard of Review
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(a) (Dec. 2010). The recently amended Rule 56(c) provides as follows:
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party
may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented
in a form that would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it
may consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or
oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to
testify on the matters stated.
FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 56(c) (Dec. 2010). Defendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears
the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying
those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). (quoting
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). If the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden
of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In
reviewing whether the nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of
weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter…the
evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor. Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. den., 507
U.S. 911 (1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
On summary judgment, the Court must take the facts in the light most favorable to Pruitt.
Indeed, with specific respect to the resolution of a summary judgment motion based on qualified
immunity – as is the case here -- the Eleventh Circuit has declared:
…we approach the facts from the plaintiff's perspective because “[t]he issues
appealed here concern not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but,
rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established
law.” Sheth v. Webster, 145 F.3d 1231, 1236 (11th Cir. 1998). As this Court has
repeatedly stressed, the “facts, as accepted at the summary judgment stage of the
proceedings, may not be the actual facts of the case.” Priester v. City of Riviera
Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 925 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, for summary
judgment purposes, our analysis must begin with a description of the facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff….
McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201, 1202 (11th Cir. 2009).
To establish Section 1983 individual liability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: 1) he
was deprived of a right secured by the United States Constitution, and 2) the act or omission
causing the deprivation was committed by an individual acting under color of state law.
Wideman v. Shallowford Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11th Cir. 1987). However,
qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from being
sued in their individual capacities. Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d 1069, 1077 (11th Cir. 2003).
The doctrine offers complete protection for government officials so long as “their conduct does
not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d
396 (1982). Once an official demonstrates that he was performing a discretionary function, the
burden is on the plaintiff to prove that qualified immunity does not insulate the official from
liability. Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.2004).
whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, and as explained in Smith v. City of
Montgomery, 2011 WL 5216309 *5-6 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 2, 2011), courts consider the following:
“….government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from
liability for civil damages” unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional
right. Townsend v. Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir.2010) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). A qualified immunity determination requires the
application of a multi-part test. First, a defendant must establish that he or she was acting
within his or her discretionary authority as a public employee when the conduct in
question occurred. Id. at 1158. Next, a plaintiff must demonstrate “‘that: (1) the
defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the
time of the alleged violation.’”…
In previous years, this two-step inquiry had to be conducted in order. That is, the court
had to decide whether a right existed (and whether it was violated) before deciding
whether it was clearly established. Now, courts may “‘exercise their sound discretion in
deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed
The parties do not dispute that Gillespie was engaged in a discretionary function when
she made the arrest in this case. Thus, Pruitt bears the burden of proving that Gillespie does not
enjoy qualified immunity protection.
Gillespie effected a warrantless arrest of Pruitt for unlawful imprisonment and menacing,
and upon contacting the DA, the charge was later changed to robbery in the first degree. Pruitt
contends that he suffered a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment because he was
attempting a citizen’s arrest and thus there was no probable cause to arrest him for any offense.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens “against unreasonable searches and seizures” by
police officers. Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 734 n. 15 (11th Cir. 2010). See also
U.S. Const. amend. IV. An arrest is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Case v. Eslinger,
555 F.3d 1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Skop v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 485 F.3d 1130, 1137
(11th Cir. 2007)). “The ‘reasonableness' of a seizure or arrest under the Fourth Amendment turns
on the presence or absence of probable cause.” Id. (citing Skop, 485 F.3d at 1137).
A warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and
constitutes a basis for a Section 1983 claim. Case, 555 F.3d at 1324-1325; Madiwale v. Savaiko,
117 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 1997). However, the existence of probable cause at the time of
such arrest bars a Section 1983 action for false arrest. Id. “Probable cause exists where the facts
and circumstances within the collective knowledge of the law enforcement officials, of which
they had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to cause a person of reasonable
caution to believe an offense has been or is being committed.” United States v. Jimenez, 780
F.2d 975, 978 (11th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Probable cause
does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be
needed to support a conviction.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972). It requires
“more than mere suspicious, but does not require convincing proof.” Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d
1425, 1435 (11th Cir. 1998).
The “analysis is undertaken in light of the totality of the
circumstances, and the standard ‘must be judged not with clinical detachment, but with a
common sense view to the realities of normal life.’” Smith v. Sheriff, Clay Cty., Fla., 506 Fed.
Appx. 894, 899 (11th Cir. 2013). Further, “[w]hile an officer who arrests an individual without
probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment, this does not inevitably remove the shield of
qualified immunity.” Skop, 485 F.3d at 1137.
Even if the officer lacks probable cause, she is still entitled to immunity if she had
arguable probable cause to arrest. Hendricks v. Sheriff, Collier Cty., Fla., 492 Fed. Appx. 90, 93
(11th Cir. 2012); Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 F.3d 1069, 1079 (11th Cir. 2003). Arguable probable
cause exists where “reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same
knowledge as the [d]efendants could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest
[the][p]laintiff ....” Kingsland v. City of Miami, Fla., 382 F.3d 1220, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). The
plaintiff bears the burden to “demonstrate that no reasonable officer could have found probable
cause under the totality of the circumstances.”
Id. Whether an officer possesses arguable
probable cause depends on the elements of the alleged crime and the operative fact pattern.
Skop, 485 F.3d at 1137–1138. Such does not require an arresting officer to establish every
element of a crime before making an arrest, as that “would negate the concept of probable cause
and transform arresting officers into prosecutors.” Scarbrough v. Myles, 245 F.3d 1299, 1303
(11th Cir. 2001). The inquiry is “whether [the defendant] violated clearly established law in
making the arrests based on the objective factors that gave rise to his probable-cause
determination and not whether the arrestees' actions actually constituted a crime.” Id. at 1303 at
n. 8. As a result “even law enforcement officials who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that
probable cause is present are entitled to immunity[,]” Holmes, 321 F.3d at 1079, and “[o]fficers
have arguable probable cause even when every element of a crime cannot be proven[,]”
Hendricks, 492 Fed. Appx. at 93.
Moreover, qualified immunity will protect officers who make good faith mistakes. Post
v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., 7 F.3d 1552, 1558 (11th Cir. 1993) (granting qualified immunity
on the basis of arguable probable cause where the officers erroneously counted people in excess
of a restaurant's maximum capacity), modified, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir. 1994). However, it will
not protect officers whose conduct “creates factual issues as to their honesty and credibility.”
Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1233. See also Holmes, 321 F.3d at 1083-1084 (reversing the grant of
qualified immunity as factual questions existed).
At the outset, Gillespie did not actually witness the actions and crimes for which she
arrested Pruitt (i.e., the crimes did not occur in her presence). Rather, Gillespie arrested Pruitt
without a warrant after all the activity had ceased between Pruitt and Jones, and Jones had been
placed in handcuffs courtesy of other officers who had arrived on the scene first. (Doc. 28-3 at
2-3 (Decltn. Pruitt)). The initial two (2) crimes Pruitt was charged with, menacing and unlawful
imprisonment, are misdemeanors under Alabama law. According to Bell v. City of York, Ala.,
2013 WL 1352022, *4 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2013), “Alabama prohibits its police officers from
arresting an individual for a misdemeanor offense without a warrant unless the offense is
committed in the officer's presence. See Ala.Code § 15–10–3(a), Ala. R.Crim. P. 4.1(a)(1).”
However, “[t]he Eleventh Circuit has rejected [the]…argument that a warrantless arrest for a
misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the officer, in violation of Alabama law, violates
the arrestee's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure when the officer has
probable cause. See Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2004)(citing,
inter alia, Knight v. Jacobson, 300 F.3d 1272, 1275–76 (11th Cir.2002)… An arrest which is
supported by probable cause—even if not permitted under state law—does not violate the Fourth
Amendment. Knight, 300 F.3d at 1276.” Id. at 6. Thus, to the extent Pruitt asserts that
Gillespie’s presence was required for his misdemeanor arrests and her absence impacts the
probable cause determination, such is not the case in the Eleventh Circuit.
Turning to the arrest, Pruitt was initially charged with unlawful imprisonment and
menacing, which was subsequently changed to robbery in the first degree. The validity of
Pruitt’s arrest does not turn on the specific charge announced by Gillespie at the time she
effected the arrest because an officer's “subjective reliance on an offense for which no probable
cause exists” does not make an arrest faulty where there is actually probable cause to support
some other offense. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1196 (11th Cir. 2002). As such, the issue is
whether there existed probable cause (including arguable) for Pruitt’s arrest for any of the
offenses -- unlawful imprisonment, menacing, or robbery in the first degree.
As to unlawful imprisonment, Ala. Code § 13A-6-42 and 13A-6-41 provide that a person
commits this crime in the second degree if he restrains another person, and in the first degree if
he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious
physical injury. Concerning menacing, Ala. Code § 13A-6-23(a) provides that a person commits
this crime if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in
fear of imminent serious physical injury.
Based on the information contained in Gillespie’s Affidavit (Doc. 19-2) (detailing what
she observed, what she learned after interviewing witnesses on the scene, etc.) which pertinent
parts are substantiated by Pruitt (Pruitt explains that he stood “[b]etween him [Jones] and the
door where he would have to go by me to get out” and “I told him he wasn’t going anywhere”
– all while holding his Glock firearm by his side (Doc. 19-1 at 21, 24 (Dep. Pruitt at 93, 102))),
there is no question that arguable probable cause existed to support an arrest for menacing and
unlawful imprisonment. Even Pruitt’s version indicates that Jones feared for his life: “[Jones]
got down on his knees saying calm down and let’s talk.” (Doc. 19-1 at 25 (Dep. Pruitt at 103)).
In sum, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Pruitt reveal that: 1) he lured Jones
to the store, restrained Jones while showing a Glock firearm, and did so under circumstances
which exposed Jones to a risk of serious physical injury (being shot or killed); and 2) he took
physical action by blocking Jones’ path to exit the store and by holding a Glock firearm at his
side, telling him he “wasn’t going anywhere,” to either intentionally place or attempt to place
Jones in fear of imminent serious physical injury (being shot or killed). See, e.g., Bash v.
Patrick, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1301-1302 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (discussing that the facts supported a
finding of menacing and that the offices had probable cause to swear out a warrant for same).
As such, under the totality of the circumstances, as well as Pruitt’s silence on the matter, the
Court finds that the facts within the collective knowledge of the law enforcement officials were
sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that these crimes had been
committed such that there was, at a minimum, arguable probable cause to arrest Pruitt for
menacing and unlawful imprisonment.
With regard to robbery, Ala. Code Section 13A-8-41 provides that a person commits the
crime of robbery in the first degree if he violates Section 13A-8-43 (robbery in the third degree)
and is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or causes serious physical injury to
another. On summary judgment the parties dispute whether Pruitt violated Section 13A-8-43,
robbery in the third degree, as follows: whether in the course of committing a theft, Pruitt used
force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical
resistance or physical power of resistance; or threatened the imminent use of force against the
person of the owner or any person present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or
escaping with the property. However, that dispute is irrelevant under the facts of this case.
As explained supra, at a minimum, arguable probable cause existed to arrest Pruitt for
unlawful imprisonment and menacing, and thus, his arrest was valid even if probable cause was
lacking for robbery in the first degree, for which he was subsequently arrested. “[S]o long as
probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for any offense, the arrest and detention are valid even if
probable cause was lacking as to some offenses, or even all announced charges.” Whittington v.
Town of Surfside, 490 F.Supp.2d 1239, 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2007). “The claim for false arrest does
not cast its primary focus on the validity of each individual charge; instead we focus on the
validity of the arrest. If there is probable cause for any of the charges made ... then the arrest was
supported by probable cause, and the claim for false arrest fails.” Stachel v. City of Cape
Canaveral, 51 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 1999). See also United States v. Harris, 2013
WL 3339055, *6 at n. 19 (N.D. Fla. Jul. 2, 2013):
[t]he fact that the Defendant was cited for the violation of a different statute is of no
consequence so long as there was probable cause to believe the defendant committed a
statutory violation of some sort. See, e.g., Owaki v. City of Miami, 491 F.Supp.2d 1140,
1155 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (“Nor does Plaintiff's arrest become a violation of his
constitutional rights because ultimately he was charged with a different crime than the
one he was arrested for: ‘[t]hat a defendant is subsequently acquitted or charges are
dropped against the defendant is of no consequence in determining the validity of the
See also United States v. Saunders, 476 F.2d 5, 7-8 (5th Cir. 1973) (when an officer makes an
arrest properly supported by probable cause, to arrest for a certain offense, neither his subjective
reliance on an offense for which no probable cause exists nor his verbal announcement of the
wrong offense vitiates the arrest). In sum, if the arresting officer had arguable probable cause to
arrest for any offense, qualified immunity will apply. Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala.,, 618 F.3d
1240, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010); Burnett v. Unified Govt. of Athens-Clarke Cty., Ga., 395 Fed.
Appx. 567, 569 (11th Cir. 2010) (same).
Moreover, “[d]ropped charges provide an occasion to puncture, through retrospection, the
onerous on-scene judgments of an officer. The ultimate release of charges... is of no significance
in the probable cause analysis. Officers are not expected to be legal technicians.” Arrington v.
Kinsey, 512 Fed. Appx. 956, 959 (11th Cir. 2013). The fact that an arrested individual is
ultimately acquitted, or charges against him are dropped, is of no consequence in determining the
validity of the arrest. Marx v. Gumbinner, 905 F.2d 1503, 1507 (11th Cir. 1990); Mills v. Town
of Davie, 48 F.Supp.2d 1378, 1380 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
Given the foregoing and under the totality of the circumstances, Pruitt has failed to prove
that a reasonable officer possessing the same knowledge as Gillespie could not have believed
that arguable probable cause existed to arrest him for some of the offenses discussed above.
Thus, Pruitt’s Section 1983 false arrest claim fails because Gillespie is entitled to qualified
immunity. As such, Gillespie’s motion for summary judgment on this claim is GRANTED.
In Section 1983 actions, government officials are immune for actions taken in their
discretionary capacity unless the actions violated law that was clearly established at the time.
Wilkerson v. Seymour, 736 F.3d 974, 977 (11th Cir. 2013). To be entitled to qualified immunity
from a Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim, an officer need only have arguable probable
cause. Grider, 618 F.3d at 1257 and n. 25; Searbrough v. Miles, 245 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir.
2001) (same). To establish a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove:
1) the elements of the common law tort of malicious prosecution; and 2) a violation of his Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Id. at 1256. The elements of the
common law tort of malicious prosecution are: 1) a criminal prosecution instituted or continued
by the present defendant; 2) with malice and without probable cause; 3) that terminated in the
plaintiff accused's favor; and 4) caused damage to the plaintiff accused. Id. “The existence of
probable cause ... constitutes an absolute bar” to federal malicious prosecution claims. Arrington
v. Kinsey, 512 Fed. Appx. 956, 958 (11th Cir. 2013). See Grider, 618 F.3d at 1257 n. 25 (“We ...
use the same ‘arguable probable cause’ standard in the qualified immunity context for § 1983
claims for both false arrest and malicious prosecution, as both require a violation of the Fourth
Amendment”). Moreover, dismissal of the charges by a court does not necessarily signify a
lack of probable cause. Id. at 960.
As detailed supra, at a minimum, arguable probable cause existed for some of the
offenses for which Pruitt was arrested. Because Gillespie had arguable probable cause to effect
Pruitt’s arrest, his claim for malicious prosecution fails as a matter of law and Gillespie is
shielded by immunity. See, e.g., Jeter v. Duren, 2012 WL 1079877, *9 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2012)
(finding similarly). As such, Gillespie’s motion on this claim is GRANTED.
Pruitt alleges that Gillespie violated his Fourth Amendment rights because she invaded
his business interests and conducted an unlawful/illegal search of his check cashing business.
(Doc. 1). This claim is based on the fact that after Pruitt’s arrest, Gillespie returned to the
Buck’s and searched an office inside that store – but not Pruitt’s check cashing business
attached thereto -- as well as viewed security video from, made copies of videos from, and took
a photograph of some documents on a refrigerator in, that store. (Doc. 19-2 at 6 (Aff. Gilespie);
Doc. 19-1 (Dep. Pruitt at 18, 28-29)).
For a person to assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the person must establish a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or object being searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439
U.S. 128, 148–149 (1978) (“[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only
through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises
or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed”). Fourth Amendment
rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted. Id. at 133–134. See also Lenz v.
Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540, 1549 (11th Cir. 1995) (same). To have standing to challenge a search, a
person “must manifest a subjective expectation of privacy in the invaded area that ‘society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.’” United States v. Moncur, 2011 WL 3844096, *4 (S.D.
Fla. Jul. 28, 2011). Moreover, [p]roperty used for commercial purposes is treated differently for
Fourth Amendment purposes from residential property.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90
(1998); New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 700 (1987) (“An expectation of privacy in
commercial premises ... is … less than, a similar expectation in an individual's home”). While
individuals may still have a “reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police” into
a particular commercial space, id., or their office, O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 716
(1987),6 the “great variety of work environments” requires analysis of reasonable expectations
“on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 718.7 Further, the individual challenging the search bears the
burden of proving standing. United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334, 1338 (11th Cir. 2008).
Pruitt’s unlawful search claim fails because he has failed to establish standing. Pruitt is
not the owner of Buck’s, nor does he hold any property interest in Buck’s offices. Pruitt cannot
assert a Fourth Amendment violation claim vicariously, or for another (on Buck’s behalf).
Additionally, on summary judgment, Pruitt asserts no legitimate expectation of privacy in
Buck’s. Rather, Pruitt is wholly silent as to this claim in response to Gillespie’s motion and only
asks that this Court deny summary judgment “as to the false arrest claim and the malicious
prosecution claim” (Doc. 27 at 25). Further, Gillespie did not even search Pruitt’s commercial
space/office that he was renting (his check cashing business), but rather the interior of Buck’s
itself and namely, one room. Accordingly, because Pruitt has failed to allege or establish
6 Providing that “[w]ithin the workplace context, ... an expectation [of privacy] in one's place of work is
based upon societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the Amendment.” (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
7 For instance, mere access to, and even use of, the office of a co-worker “does not lead us to find an
objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.” United States. v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665, 671 (9th Cir. 1991). Even
though the defendant “had access to and control of the print shop operations, his rights did not include any
expectation of privacy over documents which were kept at the print shop premises but over which [he] did not show
an independent possessory or proprietary interest.” United States v. Cella, 568 F.2d 1266, 1283 (9th Cir. 1977).
standing for his Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim, or even address this claim on
summary judgment, Gillespie’s motion on this claim is GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Gillespie’s motion for summary judgment
with regard to Pruitt’s Fourth Amendment Section 1983 claims (Docs. 17-20) is GRANTED as
to Pruitt’s claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution and unlawful search.
A Final Judgment consistent with the terms of this Order shall be entered by separate
document as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE and ORDERED this the 3rd day of February 2015.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?