ROBERT D. HAMM, ALICE HAMM, WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS, AND KATHRYN WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERIFF JAMES A. POWELL, ETC., DEFENDANT, DENNIS NORRED, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF DEPUTY OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, BRUCE JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF DEPUTY OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court holds that the force used to effect the arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, and qualified immunity protects the defendants.
Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing after an initial opinion. The Supreme Court decided Graham v. Connor, impacting the analysis of wrongful arrest an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wrongful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, HILL and ESCHBACH **, Senior Circuit Judges.
HILL, Senior Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs petition for a rehearing in this matter, and suggest a rehearing en banc of this court’s opinion in Hamm v. Powell, 874 F. 2d 766 (11th Cir.1989). We grant the petition for rehearing. Since the original arguments in this case, the Supreme Court has decided Graham v. Connor, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1985), a case which has a major impact upon the issues, and our analysis of, this ease.
Under Graham, the Supreme Court made clear that in arrest cases of this sort, courts must analyze claims of wrongful arrest and force “under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” Graham, 109 S.Ct. at 1867. Thus, Graham has made our discussion in Hamm of substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments unnecessary.
In Hamm, we correctly analyzed the qualified immunity of the defendants, and found them immune from the claims asserted in that case. The parties to that appeal did not argue the issue of official immunity to this court. The appellants merely stated that official immunity protected them; the appellees made no response. Although we have requested counsel to address that issue in supplemental briefs, we now conclude that we need not reach that issue at all.
We have held, and do hold, that qualified immunity protects the defendants in this matter. That is all the immunity they need.
We now strike that part of the opinion discussing the defendant’s official immunity. We strike as well so much of the opinion that analyzed the plaintiffs’ claims under the framework governed by Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process. We now hold that the force the defendants used to effect the arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. With these qualifications in mind, we reinstate our original opinion.
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED.
Except to the extent herein granted, the petition for rehearing is denied and, no judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing in banc, the suggestion for rehearing in banc is DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brescher v. Pirez, 696 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…urred pri- or to the rendition of Gamer, we must analyze the issue of whether the officers violated clearly established law on pre-Gamer precedent. See Hamm v. Powell, 874 F. 2d 766 [*374] (11th Cir.1989), modified on other grounds on reh’g in part, 893 F. 2d 293 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 938, 110 S.Ct. 3218, 110 L.Ed.2d 665 (1990). Section 776.05, Florida Statutes (1983), provided: [A law enforcement officer] is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to de…
-
Adams v. ST. Lucie Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 962 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1992)…conduct — as found by the ultimate fact finder after hearing conflicting versions of what happened — violated no legal right that was clearly established in 1985. See generally Hamm v. Powell, 874 F. 2d 766, 770-71 (11th Cir.1989), aff'd, on reh’g, 893 F. 2d 293 (11th Cir.1990). Therefore, at the new trial, one issue the trial judge must resolve either after plaintiff’s case-in-chief or after the close of all the evidence or after the verdict or after all three is whether defendants’ acts violated law that…
-
Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 972 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1992)…he summary judgment phase, they lose their entitlement not to stand trial. Public officials, however, do not necessarily lose their entitlement to be immune from liability. See Hamm v. Powell, 874 F. 2d 766, 770-71 (11th Cir.1989), aff'd on reh’g, 893 F. 2d 293 (11th Cir.1990). Although the district court should decide the legal issue of qualified immunity before trial, the district court can, of course, correct or modify its summary judgment ruling for error of law during the trial on a directed verdict…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989)
- Hamm v. Sheriff James A. Powell, 874 F.2d 766 (11th Cir. 1989)