Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Judge Rosenbaum's first published opinion in the 11th Circuit starts this way

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: 
It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie.  On August 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office descended on multiple target locations.  They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter.  With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants—and demanded to see their barbers’ licenses.  The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.   We first held nineteen years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriff’s Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity.  See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007).  Today, we repeat that same message once again.  We hope that the third time will be the charm. 
STRONG!  Click here for the whole opinion.

Judge William Pryor (note that the court is now distinguishing the two Pryors) concurred and dissented from the opinion, with this intro:
I agree with the majority opinion that the search of the barbershop exceeded the scope of a reasonable administrative inspection and that the barbers presented evidence that Corporal Keith Vidler, as the supervisor, violated their clearly established constitutional rights. I also agree that Brian Berry presented evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie, who handcuffed Berry and patted him down, violated his clearly established constitutional rights. But Edwyn Durant, Reginald Trammon, and Jermario Anderson presented no evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie violated their constitutional rights. Even though the inspection of the barbershop appeared to be “a scene right out of a Hollywood movie” (Majority Op. at 1), we cannot bend the law to resolve this appeal with a feel-good ending from a boxoffice hit. The law entitles Leslie to qualified immunity against any barber who failed to present evidence that Leslie personally deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. Durant, Trammon, and Anderson failed to prove an affirmative causal connection between their specific injuries and Leslie’s conduct. For that reason, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.  

HT How Appealing.

8 comments:

  1. Love it. A glimmer of hope in an otherwise dark, dingy . Lifeless pipeline of affirmations government (mis)conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P. Guyotat8:17 AM

    You may have partially answered your last question, DOM. If the panel had comprised a conservative majority, this decision may have come out the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:55 AM

    I cannot remember Pryor being so glib with any of CJ Carnes' colorful opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:03 AM

    Well he wouldn't be dissenting from a carnes opinion

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can I vote for President Obama again?

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/15/4350109/high-court-refuses-to-consider.html

    Akerman sucks

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fake Tom Thumb9:44 AM

    Loyalty oath? Never!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:59 AM

    9:44 - Fucking hilarious -

    ReplyDelete