LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief Judge.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Gourley, Britt, and Osburn (the "Canine Handlers"). Dkt. No. 33. Also before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Murray and Hewett (the "Alma Officers"). Dkt. No. 44. For the reasons stated below, both motions to dismiss are
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true." Solymar Invs., Ltd. v. Banco Santander S.A., 672 F.3d 981, 985 n. 1 (11th Cir.2012). The relevant events in this case began when a "concerned citizen" approached Bacon County Deputy Sheriff John M. Bloodworth ("Bloodworth") about marijuana trafficking at a local convenience store, the 3-D Chevron Station in Alma, Georgia ("3-D Store"). Am. Compl. ¶ 20, Dkt. No. 25. The 3-D Store sold a number of items, including smoking devices, over-the-counter cold medicine, and pornographic magazines and DVDs. According to the informant, a juvenile went to the 3-D Store and asked for a pack of cigarettes, but instead was given a cigarette box containing a marijuana bud. The informant claimed that "an Indian male" gave the juvenile the drugs. The informant then gave Bloodworth the alleged contraband, which appeared to be a small quantity of marijuana. The substance was not tested.
Bloodworth began conducting surveillance on the 3-D Store that same day. Bloodworth observed a male of Indian descent working at the 3-D Store counter. He also observed a vehicle, a silver Acura, in the parking lot of the 3-D store. Bloodworth ran a check of the Acura's license tag, which revealed that the vehicle was registered to Plaintiff Atith H. Mehta ("Mehta"). Bloodworth inquired to see if the Georgia Crime Information Center listed any arrest warrants for Mehta, and found none.
The next day, Bloodworth contacted Defendant John Murray ("Murray"), Captain of the Alma Police Department. Bloodworth asked Murray for information pertaining to the 3-D Store's business license. Murray provided Bloodworth with copies of the 3-D Store's application for a business license and the business license itself. Bloodworth also obtained Mehta's "personal statement, photocopies of Mehta's Georgia driver's license, his Permanent Resident Card, and his Social Security Card." Am. Compl. ¶ 28.
Later that day, Bloodworth petitioned for a search warrant related to his investigation. The petition sought authorization to search the 3-D Store, Mehta's vehicle, and Mehta's person. Bloodworth stated that he had a "reasonable belief that marijuana [was] concealed" at the identified locations. Am. Compl. ¶ 32. The petition listed the targets of the search as "marijuana, currency, packaging materials, weighing devices, and `other fruits of [sic] pertaining to the sales and/or distribution of marijuana.'" Am. Compl. ¶ 30. A Bacon County Magistrate Judge issued the search warrant that day.
The officers also searched Mehta's person, including his cell phone. Plaintiffs claim the officers perused Mehta's saved contacts, asking how he knew various individuals. The officers interrogated Mehta about the 3-D Store's cold medicine inventory. When Mehta indicated that he wanted to speak to a lawyer, Bloodworth allegedly replied, "If you call your lawyer you'll be in more trouble." Am. Compl. ¶ 39.
At some point, the officers took Mehta to the motel where he was residing. Notably, there is no indication that the search warrant authorized a search of Mehta's residence. Upon arrival at the motel, Bloodworth told Mehta that if he did not consent to a search of the motel room, the officers would "get a search warrant in about 30 minutes." Am. Compl. ¶ 45. Mehta then "reluctantly" signed a form consenting to the search of the motel room. Mehta claims that although he did sign the consent form, he "did not do so intelligently or voluntarily." Am. Compl. ¶ 45.
During the search of the motel room, Bloodworth found Mehta's personal laptop computer. Plaintiffs claim, upon "information and belief," that Bloodworth searched the computer, accessing Mehta's private files and links. Am. Compl. ¶ 46. Foskey and Bloodworth continued interrogating Mehta about his involvement in marijuana trafficking. Foskey told Mehta that he would drop any criminal charges if Mehta closed his business and left town. Am. Compl. ¶ 48. Plaintiffs claim, again upon "information and belief," that the other individual Defendants heard Foskey's "threats," but did not intervene. Am. Compl. ¶ 49.
Despite not finding any contraband, the officers conducting the search arrested Mehta for distribution of marijuana. Mehta was taken to the Bacon County Jail, where he was booked then released on bond. At some point, Foskey allegedly offered "to drop the state criminal charges if the Sheriff's Office could keep the money seized during the searches." Am. Compl. ¶ 48. Mehta declined the offer. Id. Later, Foskey "offered to drop the charge for just one-half of the money seized." Id. Mehta declined a second time. Id. Approximately, eleven months after the arrest, the charges against Mehta were dismissed by the Bacon County District Attorney. Am. Compl. ¶ 53. It is not clear from the Amended Complaint whether Mehta recovered all of the seized money, half of it, or none of it.
Mehta claims several detrimental consequences flowed from the search, arrest, and prosecution. Mehta had to hire a criminal defense attorney to defend
Mehta further claims that the arrest has had adverse impacts on his immigration prospects and his ability to travel abroad. Mehta claims that he has been detained twice by the Department of Homeland Security at two airports because of suspicion created by the arrest. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 64. The Department of Homeland Security also required Mehta to report frequently on the status of the charges, and threatened deportation to India if the matter was not resolved quickly.
Mehta filed this suit against twelve defendants: Bacon County Sheriff Richard Foskey; Bacon County Sheriff's Deputy John Bloodworth; Bacon County Chief Sheriff's Deputy Mark Cothern; Bacon County Chief Investigator Cameron O'Neal; Bacon County Deputy Sheriff Andy Batten; Bacon County Deputy Sheriff Shane Taylor; Canine Handler Matt Gourley; Canine Handler Kevin Britt; Canine Handler Mark Osburn; the City of Alma; City of Alma Police Department Captain John Murray; and City of Alma Police Department Sergeant Mike Hewett. Mehta asserts ten claims against the Defendants, but only the first two are relevant for present purposes.
Two groups of Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against them: Defendants Murray and Hewett, the City of Alma Police Officers (the "Alma Officers"), Dkt. No. 44, and Defendants Courley, Britt, and Osburn, the Ware State Prison employees (the "Canine Handlers"), Dkt. No. 33. The motions to dismiss are based primarily on the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Defendants' assertions of qualified immunity.
Where a defendant challenges a complaint for failing to adequately state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court should apply a "two-pronged approach" in analyzing the complaint. See Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir.2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). First, the court should "eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions." Id. Therefore, the court should ignore "[t]hreadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Second, the court should assume that all well-pleaded factual allegations are true "and then determine whether [those allegations] plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1290. Importantly, complaints against defendants who assert the defense of qualified immunity are held to the same plausibility standard as other complaints. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709-10 (11th Cir.2010).
"A complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when its allegations, on their face, show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim." Hardy v. Broward Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 238 Fed.Appx. 435, 439 (11th Cir.2007) (citing Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir.2003)). "While the defense of qualified immunity is typically addressed at the summary judgment stage of a case, it may be ... raised and considered on a motion to dismiss." St. George v. Pinellas Cnty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.2002); Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022-23 (11th Cir.2001) (citing several examples).
To receive qualified immunity, a government official "must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred."
The Alma Officers and the Canine Handlers both seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' § 1983 unlawful search and seizure claims. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts that the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers participated in some aspects of the search and were merely present for others.
The Canine Handlers question the Plaintiffs' standing to assert an unlawful search claim. Dkt. No. 33, at 11. The Canine Handlers argue that the individual Plaintiff, Mehta, has no standing to challenge the search of the 3-D Store and the business Plaintiff, the 3-D Store, has no standing to challenge the search of Mehta's person, his car, his cell phone, his computer, or his motel room. Based on this argument, the Canine Handlers seek dismissal of any claims asserted by either Plaintiff for which that Plaintiff does not have standing. Plaintiffs did not respond to the Canine Handlers' standing arguments.
Although both the 3-D Store and Mehta are named Plaintiffs in this action, it is not clear from the Amended Complaint that Mehta individually challenges the search of the 3-D Store. Similarly, it is not clear that the 3-D Store challenges the search of Mehta's person, car, phone, computer, and motel room. Rather it appears that both the store and Mehta are named so that Plaintiffs would not face standing challenges. To construe the Amended Complaint as Defendants do would require the Court to go out of the way to find a lack of standing for some of the claims asserted. The Court has no reason to engage in such a labored construction. As such, the Court understands the Amended Complaint as one Plaintiff, the 3-D Store, challenging the search of the store premises, and the other Plaintiff, Mehta, challenging the search of his person, his phone, his car, his computer, and his motel room.
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that the Alma Officers and the Canine Handlers personally participated in the search of the 3-D Store, Mehta's Car, and Mehta's person. These are precisely the areas covered by the magistrate's search warrant. The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers seek dismissal of the claims related to these searches on various grounds.
The defense of qualified immunity "turns on the objective legal reasonableness
In this case, even taking all facts pled in the Amended Complaint as true, there is no indication that the magistrate-issued warrant was substantially lacking in indicia of probable cause. Rather, the warrant was based on statements and physical evidence presented in person to Bloodworth. By no means can the Court say it is entirely unreasonable or plainly incompetent for an officer to believe that a search warrant is supported by probable cause, where the warrant is based on direct statements to a law enforcement officer that illegal drugs are being sold at a specific location, and the officer is given physical evidence of the illegal transaction. Plaintiffs failed to show that the Canine Handlers and the Alma Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search of the 3-D Store; Plaintiffs have not pled facts showing it would have been plainly incompetent to rely on the magistrate's warrant. Nor have Plaintiffs pled any facts indicating that the Canine Handlers or the Alma Officers were plainly incompetent in relying on the warrant to search Mehta's person, his vehicle, and the 3-D Store. As such, the Canine Handlers and the Alma officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability arising from the search of the 3-D Store, Mehta's person, and Mehta's vehicle.
Plaintiffs also argue broadly that the magistrate-issued warrant was an impermissible "general" warrant because it authorized the search of three separate locations, without probable cause to search each individual location. Am. Compl. ¶ 82. In effect, Plaintiffs challenge that the search warrant was not sufficiently particularized with regards to the locations to be searched. Again, the Court finds no indication in the Amended Complaint that the warrant was so overly broad that it would have been plainly incompetent for the Canine Handlers and the Alma Officers to rely on it in conducting a search of the 3-D Store, Mehta's person, and Mehta's vehicle. The warrant authorized the search of areas closely associated with Mehta: his person, his business, and his vehicle, and the warrant adequately identified the contraband and related items. See, e.g., United States v. Fernandez Martinez, 317 Fed. Appx. 929 (11th Cir.2009) (holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence, vehicles at the residence, and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad, given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found). The warrant was not overly broad in authorizing the search of Mehta, his car, and the 3-D Store.
Plaintiffs assert that Bloodworth searched Mehta's cell phone and laptop. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38, 46. The Amended Complaint does not allege that the Alma Officers or Canine Handlers participated in the search of these items. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue that the Alma Officers and the Canine Handlers can be held liable for failing to intervene to prevent these searches. See Dkt. No. 48, at 19 ("The Alma officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they witnessed other law enforcement officers search Mehta's electronic storage devices (cell phone and laptop computer) but did nothing to stem the effort.").
As noted previously, once the Defendants establish that they were acting in their discretionary authority — which is without question here — the Plaintiffs have the burden of persuasion to establish that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. To do so, Plaintiffs must show that the Amended Complaint alleges a constitutional violation of clearly established law. Plaintiffs cannot point to any controlling authority that requires a law enforcement officer to intervene to prevent another officer from performing an unlawful search. In their briefing, Plaintiffs point to case law establishing that "bystander liability" — i.e., that law enforcement officers have an affirmative duty to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from infringement by other law enforcement officers — exists as a general proposition, and is distinct from supervisory liability. See Dkt. No. 48, at 9 (citing Randall v. Prince George's Cnty., Md., 302 F.3d 188, 203 (4th Cir.2002)). Plaintiffs further point to Eleventh Circuit case law establishing that a law enforcement officer can be liable for failing to intervene in another officer's use of excessive force. Id. at 10 (citing Sanders v. City of Union Springs, 207 Fed.Appx. 960, 966 (11th Cir. 2006); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir.1986)). Plaintiffs have not, however, demonstrated that the law was "clearly established" that a law enforcement officer can be held liable under § 1983 for failing to prevent another officer's unlawful search.
"A Government official's conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, `[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently
Even assuming that law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene in unlawful searches when they are in a position to do so, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers violated clearly established law by failing to intervene in these particular circumstance. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officer's use of excessive force, the absence of authority from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant). The facts alleged in this case are distinct from any case cited by Plaintiffs. The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers participated in a search, pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, following Bloodworth's informant interview and investigation. The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers worked for completely separate political subdivisions from Bloodworth. The law was and is far from clearly established that the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers were under a constitutional duty to confront, challenge, and prevent Bloodworth from inspecting Mehta's phone and laptop. Accordingly, the Canine Handlers and the Alma Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' claims related to the phone and laptop.
The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers also seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims arising from an allegedly unlawful search of his motel room. Dkt. No. 33, at 31-32. Mehta concedes that he consented to the search of his motel room, but contends that the consent was coerced. According to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, "Bloodworth told Mehta that if he did not allow them to search both his motel room and his laptop computer, `We'll get a search warrant in about 30 minutes.'" Am. Compl. ¶ 45. Mehta then signed a "Consent to Search" form, provided by the officers. Ultimately, Mehta contends that he consented to the search, but did not do so voluntarily or intelligently. The Defendants argue that the claims related to the search of the motel room should be dismissed because (1) the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim given that Mehta consented to the search, and (2) the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was arguable consent
Here, Plaintiffs' facts supporting their claim that Mehta's consent was coerced are exceptionally thin, but not so thin that Plaintiffs have failed to assert a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs have pled that Mehta was subjected to a multi-hour search by up to seven law enforcement officers and canine units. Mehta was interrogated and his store's merchandise was seized. According to Mehta, Foskey had strongly discouraged Mehta from contacting his legal counsel and seized money from Mehta's wallet. At this time, the Court is ill-equipped to make a "heavily fact-dependent" inquiry into the totality of the circumstances of Mehta's consent, and determine that his consent was voluntary.
This is not to say that the claim will survive summary judgment. It may be that the full facts authorize judgment in favor of the defendants at the summary judgment phase. However, Plaintiffs' claims against the Canine Handlers and the Alma Officers for their participation in the search of Mehta's motel room adequately state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Defendants' motions are denied on this issue, at this time.
Plaintiffs also assert a cause of action against the Alma Officers and the Canine Handlers for the unlawful arrest of Mehta. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73-78 ("Count I"). The parties agree that Bloodworth carried out the arrest of Mehta.
Plaintiffs have pointed to no controlling authority that requires a law enforcement officer to intervene to prevent another officer from performing an unlawful arrest.
Plaintiffs also rely on Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 737 (11th Cir.2010). On one hand, Brown very clearly states, "[m]erely being present with the arresting officers at the scene is not enough [to establish § 1983 liability], unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant officer was part of the chain of command authorizing the arrest action." Id. Likewise, Brown states, "Because [the defendant] did not arrest [the plaintiff] and had no supervisory control over the officer
However, even assuming Plaintiffs are correct, and that law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene in other officer's unlawful arrests, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers or Alma Officers violated clearly established law in this case. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officer's use of excessive force, the absence of authority from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant). The Canine Handlers and Alma Officers were asked to come to the 3-D Store and Mehta's motel room in order to assist the Bacon County officers' search. Ultimately, Sheriff Foskey and Deputy Sheriff Bloodworth decided to arrest Mehta. Plaintiffs argue that the Canine Handlers and the Alma Officers were under a duty to confront the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff — law enforcement officers from a completely separate political subdivision — challenge the constitutionality of the arrest, then intervene in the conduct. There is no allegation that the Canine Handlers or the Alma Officers had any knowledge of the facts leading up to the arrest, such as the results of Bloodworth's investigation, or other circumstances motivating Bloodworth's decision to arrest Mehta.
The Court is at pains to discern a clear rule in the Eleventh Circuit case law regarding an officer's liability for failing to intervene in an unlawful arrest; thus, it is improper to say that "the contours of the right ... [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand" that failing to intervene in an unlawful arrest violates that right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Accordingly, the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' claims based on Mehta's allegedly unlawful arrest.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are
