Amir M. Meshal v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 1 of 25

` [PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10128

____________________

AMIR M. MESHAL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY,

JOSHUA J. JANUFKA,

KEITH OGLESBY,

Defendants-Appellants,

DERRICK FRINK,

Defendant.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 2 of 25

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00010-RSB-CLR

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

Georgia State Police officers stopped Amir Meshal, a profes-

sional truck driver, for a minor traffic infraction. During the stop,

the officers received notice that Meshal was on the FBI’s No Fly

List. Despite clear language on the notice instructing the officers

not to detain Meshal based on his presence on the list, they hand-

cuffed him and placed him in the back of a patrol car while they

sought and waited for guidance from the FBI. While they waited,

the officers searched the inside of Meshal’s truck and questioned

him about his religion and his international travel. After determin-

ing that his truck was free of contraband and receiving the all-clear

from the FBI, the officers released Meshal with a warning citation

for the original infraction. He was detained for 91 minutes in total.

Following his release, Meshal sued the officers in federal

court, alleging that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by

unlawfully extending the traffic stop and searching his truck. The

officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified-immunity

grounds, arguing that Meshal failed to allege a violation of clearly

established law. The district court rejected this argument,

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 3 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 3

concluding that the complaint adequately alleged that the officers

detained Meshal without arguable reasonable suspicion and

searched his truck without arguable probable cause. The officers

brought this interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court’s

denial of qualified immunity.

We agree with the district court that the officers are not en-

titled to qualified immunity at this stage. Given Meshal’s specific

allegations of fact, including a warning to the officers that he should

not be detained on account of his no-fly status and the absence of

any indication that he was engaged in criminal activity, the officers

lacked even arguable reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging the

traffic stop beyond the time it took to complete tasks incident to

the traffic stop. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of

qualified immunity.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Meshal’s Detention

Meshal was driving northbound through Georgia in his semi

truck with no trailer attached when he was stopped by Joshua Jan-

ufka, an officer with the Georgia State Patrol. After collecting

Meshal’s license and registration, Janufka explained that he had

pulled Meshal over for following too closely behind another vehi-

cle and that he would issue a courtesy warning in lieu of a ticket.

Because it was raining, Janufka suggested that they continue their

conversation in his patrol car. Meshal obliged, entering the front

passenger seat of the patrol car shortly before another officer, Keith

Oglesby, pulled up to the scene.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 4 of 25

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

Once Meshal was inside the patrol car, Janufka asked him “a

series of questions that [Meshal] understood to be standard ques-

tions that truck drivers are asked during traffic stops to ensure that

they are following regulations.” Doc. 1 at 4. 1 In response, Meshal

explained that he had just picked up a load in Delaware, dropped it

off in Miami, 2 and spent two nights with his mother elsewhere in

Florida before driving to New Jersey—where he was headed when

he was pulled over. He then showed Janufka a “bill of lading con-

taining information about the load” he had just delivered. Id. When

Janufka asked Meshal if he had ever been arrested, Meshal replied

that “he had been arrested a long time ago and could not remember

what for, but that it was probably for driving with a suspended li-

cense.” Id. at 5.

At this point, Janufka asked twice for consent to search

Meshal’s truck, and Meshal declined both times, prompting Janufka

to call for a K9 unit. Janufka then asked Meshal to exit the vehicle,

explaining that “[s]omething was wrong” and that he needed to de-

tain Meshal as a result. Id. After patting Meshal down and confis-

cating his cell phone, Janufka handcuffed him and placed him in the

back of the patrol car, stating “you’re not under arrest but I have

1 “Doc.” refers to the district court’s docket entries.

2 The complaint states that Meshal was pulled over as he was “returning home

after delivering equipment for the halftime show of Super Bowl LIV at Hard

Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida.” Doc. 1 at 4. The stop occurred

about a week before the Super Bowl. It is unclear from the complaint whether

Meshal provided the officers with this detailed information or merely told

them that he had dropped off a load “in Miami.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 5 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 5

to detain you.” Id. at 5–6. When Meshal asked to use the restroom,

Janufka told him to “just hang tight” and closed the patrol car’s

door. Id. at 6. By this time, approximately 30 minutes had passed

since Meshal was pulled over.

From his new vantage point in the patrol car’s back seat,

Meshal could see Janufka’s computer screen, where he spotted the

word “Terrorist.” Id. When Janufka returned to the patrol car to

tell Meshal that “narcotics- and explosives-detecting canine teams

were on their way,” Meshal asked “if he was being detained be-

cause he is on a watchlist.” Id. Janufka responded, “Exactly. So, you

know what’s going on?” Meshal then “explained that he had been

detained in 2007 in Somalia by Kenyan authorities working with

federal law enforcement agencies, and that he ended up on the No

Fly List after refusing the FBI’s requests to work as an informant.”

Id. Janufka responded, “This is over my head. I’m getting instruc-

tions on what to do.” Id.

As they waited for the K9 officers to arrive, Janufka contin-

ued to pepper Meshal with questions, including whether he had

any “explosives, narcotics, marijuana, weapons, cocaine, large

amounts of cash, or anything else that law enforcement should be

concerned about in his truck.” Id. at 7. Meshal said no, and Janufka

explained that, in addition to waiting for the K9 officers, Janufka

was “‘waiting on a phone call from the FBI’ for guidance about

whether [he] should arrest [Meshal].” Id.

Approximately 30 minutes after Meshal was placed in the

back of Janufka’s patrol car—about an hour after Meshal was pulled

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 6 of 25

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

over—Chatham County Sheriff’s Deputy Derrick Frink and an-

other K9 officer arrived at the scene. When an initial exterior dog

sniff failed to indicate the presence of drugs or explosives in

Meshal’s truck, Frink walked back to the patrol car to get Janufka.

Janufka then watched as Frink “opened the passenger side door of

the semi-truck,” “physically lifted his dog into the cabin of the ve-

hicle,” and “entered the truck himself” for “approximately a mi-

nute and a half,” “with no apparent positive indication from the

dog.” Id. at 7–8. Once Frink emerged from the cabin, the second

K9 officer conducted yet another dog sniff around the exterior of

the truck—again, to no avail. At this point, the officers let Meshal

out of the patrol car, but he remained in handcuffs.

Having found no evidence of drugs or explosives in the

truck, Frink and the other K9 officer departed, and Janufka ex-

plained to Meshal that they were now “just waiting on a call from

the FBI.” Id. at 8. In the meantime, Janufka asked Meshal “more

questions about his religious background and travels abroad”—a

conversation that lasted “approximately ten to fifteen minutes.” Id.

Then, either Janufka or Oglesby walked away to take a call before

returning to tell Meshal that he was free to go. Janufka removed

Meshal’s handcuffs, handed him a written warning for following

too closely, and drove off. All told, Meshal was detained for “ap-

proximately one hour and thirty-one minutes,” about an hour of

which was spent in handcuffs, mostly in the back of Janufka’s patrol

car. Id. at 9.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 7 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 7

B. Meshal’s Presence on the No Fly List

Meshal alleged that he has been on the No Fly List since “at

least 2009,” despite having petitioned multiple times to be re-

moved. Doc. 1 at 6. The No Fly List is a subset of the Terrorist

Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist. The Na-

tional Crime Information Center (NCIC) allows state and local law

enforcement officers to search for individuals by name to see if they

are on the No Fly List. If they are, NCIC sends an automated mes-

sage to the officer disclosing that the individual is on the list, but it

does not explain the reason why.

According to the complaint, when an individual is on the

watchlist but is not subject to an active arrest warrant or an immi-

gration detainer, the inquiring officer receives an NCIC notice that

reads:

***LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

INFORMATION***

DO NOT ADVISE THIS INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY

MAY BE ON A TERRORIST WATCHLIST.

CONTACT THE TERORRIST SCREENING

CENTER (TSC) AT (866) XXX-XXXX DURING THIS

ENCOUNTER. IF THIS WOULD EXTEND THE

SCOPE OR DURATION OF THE ENCOUNTER

CONTACT THE TSC IMMEDIATELY

THEREAFTER. IF YOU ARE A BORDER PATROL

OFFICER, IMMEDIATELY CALL THE NTC.

ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DURING THE

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 8 of 25

8 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

ENCOUNTER, WITHOUT OTHERWISE

EXTENDING THE SCOPE OR DURATION OF

THE ENCOUNTER, TO ASSIST THE TSC IN

DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE NAME

OR IDENTIFIER(S) YOU QUERIED BELONGS TO

AN INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFIED AS HAVING

POSSIBLE TIES WITH TERRORISM.

DO NOT DETAIN OR ARREST THIS

INDIVIDUAL UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF

A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL

STATUTES.

UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE IS PROHIBITED.

INFORMATION THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL MAY

BE ON A TERRORIST WATCHLIST IS PROPERTY

OF THE TSC AND IS A FEDERAL RECORD

PROVIDED TO YOUR AGENCY THAT MAY NOT

BE DISSEMINATED OR USED IN ANY

PROCEEDING WITHOUT THE ADVANCE

AUTHORIZATION OF THE TSC.

WARNING – APPROACH WITH CAUTION.

***LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

INFORMATION***

Id. at 14 (emphasis added in complaint). Januf ka received this no-

tice when he stopped Meshal and queried his name through the

NCIC.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 9 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 9

C. Procedural History

Meshal sued Janufka, Oglesby, Frink, and Christopher

Wright, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public

Safety, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that these defendants vi-

olated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully extending the

traffic stop (Count One) and unlawfully searching his truck without

probable cause (Count Two). He sought both monetary and equi-

table relief, including a “a declaratory judgment establishing that

[Meshal’s] inclusion on the consolidated federal watchlist or any

subset of the watchlist does not in itself constitute reasonable sus-

picion or probable cause to stop or arrest [him].” Doc. 1 at 17. 3

Janufka, Oglesby, and Wright quickly moved to dismiss the

case on qualified immunity grounds,4 arguing that Meshal had not

sufficiently alleged that the stop or the search of his truck

amounted to a Fourth Amendment violation and that he failed to

identify clearly established law establishing any violation. The dis-

trict court rejected these arguments, concluding that, accepting the

complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as true, the officers lacked

both arguable reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and arguable

probable cause to search the truck. And the court concluded that

3 The district court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment prevented Meshal

from suing Janufka and Oglesby for damages in their official capacities. But the

court concluded that the requested declaratory judgment was prospective eq-

uitable relief aimed at preventing ongoing constitutional violations, which

was permitted by Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

4 Frink did not join the motion to dismiss and is not a party to this appeal.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 10 of 25

10 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

both requirements were clearly established at the time of the traffic

stop. Janufka, Oglesby, and Wright challenge the denial of qualified

immunity in this interlocutory appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of quali-

fied immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. See Leslie v. Hancock

Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 720 F.3d 1338, 1343 (11th Cir. 2013). Generally, a

motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds should be

granted only “when the complaint fails to allege the violation of a

clearly established constitutional right.” Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d

1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ap-

pellate review of a motion-to-dismiss denial is “limited to the four

corners of the complaint,” and this Court must “accept[] all the

facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw[] all reasonable in-

ferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks omit-

ted). The district court’s qualified-immunity ruling should be re-

versed only if the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified

immunity “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” See Fortner

v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1028 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Meshal alleged that the officers violated his constitutional

rights in two ways: first, by detaining him beyond the scope of the

initial traffic stop, and second, by searching the inside of his truck.

The officers argue that they are shielded from these claims by qual-

ified immunity. We begin by considering the officers’ qualified

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 11 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 11

immunity argument with respect to Meshal’s prolonged detention

before shifting our focus to the search of his truck. Ultimately, we

are not persuaded that qualified immunity applies to either claim

at this stage of the proceedings.

A. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity

for extending the traffic stop’s duration.

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for

civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional

right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged ac-

tion.” Bailey v. Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473, 480 (11th Cir. 2016) “To in-

voke qualified immunity, a public official must first demonstrate

that he was acting within the scope of his or her discretionary au-

thority.” Jones v. Fransen, 857 F.3d 843, 851 (11th Cir. 2017). Discre-

tionary authority encompasses “all actions of a governmental offi-

cial that (1) were undertaken pursuant to the performance of his

duties, and (2) were within the scope of his authority.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). If the official satisfies this requirement,

the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that qualified im-

munity is inappropriate. To do this, he must “plead[] facts showing

(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the chal-

lenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011).

Meshal does not dispute that the officers were acting within

the scope of their discretionary authority when they detained him.

The remaining questions are whether the complaint sufficiently al-

leged that the officers violated Meshal’s Fourth Amendment rights

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 12 of 25

12 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

by extending the duration of the traffic stop and whether those

rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

We address each of these questions in turn.

1. The complaint sufficiently alleged that the officers vi-

olated Meshal’s Fourth Amendment rights by extend-

ing the traffic stop’s duration.

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people

to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

“Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automo-

bile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited

purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of

this provision.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996).

“[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for

which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against

unreasonable seizures,” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350

(2015), unless that extension was supported by reasonable suspi-

cion of other criminal activity, United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965,

970 (11th Cir. 2003).

Meshal’s complaint alleged that Janufka stopped him for

“following too closely” and almost immediately informed him that

he would be issued “a courtesy warning” instead of a ticket. Doc. 1

at 4. After discovering that Meshal was on the No Fly List, how-

ever, Janufka and the other officers extended his seizure for a total

of an hour and a half—far longer than it should take to complete a

simple traffic stop absent arguable reasonable suspicion of other

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 13 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 13

criminal activity by Meshal. Cf. United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d

1274, 1277–79 (11th Cir. 2001) (concluding that it was not facially

unreasonable for an officer to spend 14 minutes writing a courtesy

warning and running computer checks).

The officers insist that the extension was justified for two

reasons. First, they argue that “officers may detain a driver after a

traffic stop for as long as it takes the officers to complete ‘tasks tied

to the traffic infraction.’” Appellants’ Br. 20 (quoting Rodriguez,

575 U.S. at 354). And because calling the FBI and waiting for a re-

sponse was simply an “ordinary inquir[y] incident to the traffic

stop”—like “determining whether there are outstanding warrants

against the driver”—Meshal’s prolonged detention was reasonable.

Id. at 20–21 (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355). Second, the offic-

ers argue that Meshal’s detention was justified because the officers

reasonably suspected that he was engaged in criminal activity un-

related to the traffic stop.

Neither of these arguments persuades us. First, the officers’

call to the FBI was not an ordinary inquiry incident to the traffic

stop for following another vehicle too closely and was not plausibly

related to the mission of that stop. Second, the officers lacked an

independent basis to extend the traffic stop because they cannot

point to specific and articulable facts in the allegations before us

that provide anything more than an inchoate and unparticularized

suspicion or hunch that Meshal was involved in some kind of ter-

rorist activity.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 14 of 25

14 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

(a) The officers were conducting no ordinary inquiry incident

to the mission of the traffic stop when they called the FBI.

“[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-

stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the

traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety

concerns.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354 (internal citation and quota-

tion marks omitted). “Beyond determining whether to issue a traf-

fic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ordinary inquiries incident

to the traffic stop,” such as “checking the driver’s license, determin-

ing whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and

inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.”

Id. at 355 (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Such inquiries are permitted under the authority of the original

stop because they “serve the same objective as enforcement of the

traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely

and responsibly.” Id. Still, “[t]he scope of the detention must be

carefully tailored to its underlying justification” and may “last no

longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” Flor-

ida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion). “Authority

for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction

are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Rodriguez,

575 U.S. at 354.

The officers argue that, even without an independent basis

to extend the stop, “the probable cause for [the] original traffic stop

itself allowed the officers to” detain Meshal until the FBI gave the

all-clear “because that process was a routine part of a traffic stop.”

Reply Br. 8. Contacting the FBI to inquire about Meshal’s presence

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 15 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 15

on the No Fly List, they say, was “not unlike a routine check for

‘warrants against the driver’ because they both serve the same ob-

jective: ‘ensuring that vehicles on the road are operating safely and

responsibly.’” Id. (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355).

Supreme Court precedent compels us to disagree. Detaining

Meshal for over an hour after checking his license and registration

and learning that there was no warrant against him is neither rou-

tine nor ordinary.5 See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354–55 (noting that a

traffic stop’s mission includes “address[ing] the traffic violation” as

well as performing “ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop”

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The officers are correct that Rodriguez did not purport to

provide an “exhaustive” list of permitted ancillary activities. But

the officer’s call to the FBI did not relate to the “enforcement of the

traffic code” or otherwise “ensuring that vehicles on the road are

operated safely and responsibly.” Id. at 355. Unlike warrant checks,

which “make[] it possible to determine whether the apparent traffic

violator is wanted for one or more previous traffic offenses,” a call

to the FBI would hardly be expected to turn up any information

concerning Meshal’s ability to drive safely and obey the traffic

code. Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The

FBI call “lack[ed] the same close connection to roadway safety as

the ordinary inquiries” discussed in Rodriguez; thus, it “cannot be

5 The complaint does not specify exactly when the officers contacted the FBI,

but it alleges that Meshal was handcuffed and placed in the back of Janufka’s

patrol car approximately 30 minutes into the 91-minute stop.

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 16 of 25

16 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

fairly characterized as part of the officer[s’] traffic mission.” United

States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 882 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (in-

ternal quotation marks omitted). Instead, based on the allegations

in the complaint, which we accept as true at this stage of the pro-

ceedings, the officers were attempting to investigate suspected

criminal activity—indeed, suspected terrorist activity—that was far

beyond the scope of the original traffic stop. See id. (“[R]elated tasks

are the ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop, while unrelated

tasks are other measures aimed at detecting criminal activity more

generally.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

But even assuming the officers are right that the FBI call and

response served the mission of the traffic stop in the same way that

a warrant check would, the call extended Meshal’s detention be-

yond what the Fourth Amendment allows. We have recognized

that even related inquiries like a criminal record request “might

lengthen a traffic stop beyond what is reasonable in a particular

case,” and that “[a]fter a certain point, this might constitute an un-

reasonable detention.” Purcell, 236 F.3d at 1279. Although “a 30-mi-

nute wait for a computer check during a traffic stop” may be rea-

sonable, “longer traffic stops, during which nothing occurred to

justify the additional detention, usually require extenuating cir-

cumstances to be upheld.” United States v. Simmons, 172 F.3d 775,

780 (11th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709–

10 (1983) (stating that 90 minutes is probably too long for a Terry

stop). The officers maintain that the length of the detention was

dictated by the timing of the FBI’s response and therefore justified.

But what if the FBI had taken two hours to respond? Or six hours?

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 17 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 17

Or a whole day? It cannot be that any length of detention was per-

missible until the officers received an all-clear from the FBI. Our

conclusion that the 91-minute traffic stop went beyond the permis-

sible scope absent reasonable suspicion of illegal activity is bol-

stered by Meshal’s allegation that the NCIC notice directed the of-

ficers not to detain him based on the No Fly List and to call after

the traffic stop was over.

Without reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity, the

officers’ seizure of Meshal beyond the time it took to issue a cour-

tesy warning and make “ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic

stop” was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355 (alteration adopted) (inter-

nal quotation marks omitted).

(b) Based on the allegations in the complaint, the officers

lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.

“A traffic stop may be prolonged where an officer is able to

articulate a reasonable suspicion of other illegal activity beyond the

traffic offense.” Perkins, 348 F.3d at 970. Although “‘reasonable sus-

picion’ is a less demanding standard than probable cause and re-

quires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evi-

dence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of

objective justification.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000).

“The officer must be able to articulate more than an inchoate and

unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.” Id. at

123–24 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, he must “point

to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 18 of 25

18 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.”

United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010) (alter-

ation adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, the

question is whether “under the totality of the circumstances, from

the collective knowledge of the officer[s] involved in the stop,

[they] had an objectively reasonable suspicion that [the suspect]

had engaged in a crime.” Id. (alterations adopted) (internal quota-

tion marks omitted). Notably, however, the reasonable suspicion

standard “does not require officers to catch the suspect in a crime.”

United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “reasonable suspicion of crimi-

nal activity may be formed by observing exclusively legal activity.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The officers point to three facts alleged in the complaint that

they say provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop:

(1) Meshal’s placement on the No Fly List, (2) Meshal’s past arrest

for driving with a suspended license, and (3) Meshal’s recent deliv-

ery to Miami, the site of the upcoming Super Bowl. Without more,

however, these facts—individually or in concert—failed to provide

the officers with reasonable suspicion to convert Meshal’s routine

traffic stop into a 91-minute detention.

To start, the officers’ reliance on Meshal’s no-fly status is

contradicted by the text of the NCIC notice itself, which specifi-

cally instructed the officers to wait until after the traffic stop to call

the TSC if doing so “would extend the scope or duration of the

encounter.” Doc. 1 at 14 (capitalization removed). The notice also

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 19 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 19

clarified that any attempts to gather identifying information on

Meshal should be limited to the timeframe required by the stop’s

original purpose. And, if that were not clear enough, the notice

warned the officers “not [to] detain or arrest [Meshal] unless there

[was] evidence of a violation of federal, state[,] or local statutes.”

Id. (capitalization removed).

The officers’ reliance on Meshal’s “criminal history” and his

recent delivery to the site of the Super Bowl is even weaker. To

start, the officers do not even attempt to explain how Meshal’s ar-

rest “a long time ago,” reportedly for driving with a suspended li-

cense, Id. at 5, indicated that “criminal activity [was] afoot,” Ward-

low, 528 U.S. at 123, especially because Meshal readily provided a

current driver’s license during the stop and had no outstanding war-

rants. Nor are the officers able to articulate what was so suspicious

about Meshal, a professional truck-driver, making a delivery to Mi-

ami, which happened to be the site of the Super Bowl scheduled to

take place more than a week later. Even more, Meshal showed Jan-

uf ka a “bill of lading containing information about the load,”

which supported his story. Doc. 1 at 4. Ultimately, based on the

complaint’s allegations, we are compelled to conclude that the of-

ficers had nothing more than “an inchoate and unparticularized

suspicion or hunch of criminal activity,” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 24

(internal quotation marks omitted), which could not justify

Meshal’s 91-minute detention.

The officers disagree. They urge us to consider each fact in

tandem—not in isolation—and give “‘due weight to the officer[s’]

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 20 of 25

20 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

experience’ in ferreting out ‘wrongdoing.’” Reply Br. 7 (quoting

United States v. Braddy, 11 F.4th 1298, 1311 (11th Cir. 2021)). Even in

concert, however, the officers’ justifications fall short.

It is true that “factors not in themselves proof of illicit con-

duct and/or quite consistent with innocent travel can, when taken

together, give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal or drug ac-

tivity.” United States v. Tapia, 912 F.2d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1990).

But the officers’ suspicions based on the facts alleged here amount

to little more than a generalized concern that individuals added to

the No Fly List might commit terrorist acts anytime they venture

out. Although the officers stress that Meshal was returning from

the future site of the Super Bowl—“arguably the most visible and

high-target event on the American calendar,” Appellants’ Br. 21—

their argument has no apparent limiting principle. To be sure, the

Super Bowl would appear to be an attractive target for would-be

terrorists. But so too would schools, supermarkets, malls, places of

worship, nightclubs, government buildings, and downtown areas—

all places where terrorist attacks have occurred. The logical impli-

cation of the officers’ argument is that individuals on the No Fly

List can be subjected to prolonged detention any time they travel

to or from a public place. We cannot countenance that result. Cf.

United States v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102, 1109 (11th Cir. 2003) (caution-

ing that factors that “would likely apply to a considerable number

of those traveling for perfectly legitimate purposes . . . do not rea-

sonably provide suspicion of criminal activity” (alterations

adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 21 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 21

conclude that Meshal’s complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of

his Fourth Amendment rights.

2. Meshal’s rights were clearly established.

Plausibly alleging a constitutional violation is only half the

battle. To overcome qualified immunity, Meshal must also show

that the right in question was “clearly established at the time of the

challenged conduct.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735 (internal quotation

marks omitted). The “relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining

whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear

to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful in the situa-

tion he confronted.” Plowright v. Miami Dade Cnty., 102 F.4th 1358,

1366 (11th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A law enforcement official who reasonably but mistakenly

concludes that reasonable suspicion is present is still entitled to

qualified immunity.” Jackson v. Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165–66 (11th

Cir. 2000). “When an officer asserts qualified immunity, the issue

is not whether reasonable suspicion existed in fact, but whether the

officer had ‘arguable’ reasonable suspicion to support an investiga-

tory stop.” Id. If the officers had arguable reasonable suspicion,

then “their violation of the law was not clearly established.” Edgar

v. McCabe, 84 F.4th 1230, 1236 (11th Cir. 2023). Thus, the question

is whether, under Meshal’s version of events, the officers lacked

even arguable reasonable suspicion for their actions. Meshal has

met this burden.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, to determine whether the

officers had arguable reasonable suspicion, we must take the

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 22 of 25

22 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

allegations in the complaint as true and analyze whether, under the

facts as alleged, “a reasonable officer could have believed that the

[stop] comported with the Fourth Amendment.” Brent v. Ashley,

247 F.3d 1294, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks

omitted). In doing so, we “must examine the totality of the circum-

stances to determine whether an officer had a ‘particularized and

objective’ basis to support his suspicion. Whether the officer’s sus-

picion ends up being mistaken is immaterial so long as it was rea-

sonable.” Whittier v. Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2009)

(internal citation omitted).

Here, based on the facts as alleged in the complaint, a rea-

sonable police officer could not have believed that Meshal’s long-

ago arrest for driving with a suspended license, his delivery trip to

Miami, and his mere presence on the No Fly List were sufficient to

detain him for more than an hour and a half. This is especially true

given the alleged numerous, explicit warnings in the same NCIC

notice that flagged Meshal’s no-fly status. As the district court aptly

put it, “[t]he Complaint plausibly allege[d] that the officers merely

equated Meshal’s presence on the list to ambiguous criminal activ-

ity, which they believed they were at liberty to investigate without

regard for Meshal’s constitutionally protected rights.” Doc. 36 at

26. That belief was not only wrong—it was unreasonable.

Moreover, binding precedent featuring materially similar

facts clearly established that the officers violated Meshal’s Fourth

Amendment rights by extending the stop, without reasonable sus-

picion of other criminal activity, beyond the time it took for them

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 23 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 23

to conduct tasks incident to the stop. See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 351–

53, 356 (concluding that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment

where, having issued a written warning to a driver who veered

onto the shoulder of a highway and thus “got[ten] all the reasons

for the stop out of the way,” he extended the stop by seven or eight

minutes to conduct a canine search, which was “not an ordinary

incident of a traffic stop” and was “not fairly characterized as part

of the officer’s traffic mission” (alterations adopted) (internal quo-

tation marks omitted)); Boyce, 351 F.3d at 1111 (concluding that a

detention violated the Fourth Amendment when it “extended be-

yond the time necessary to process the traffic violation for which

[the suspect] was stopped”).

Because the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified

immunity does not “clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint,”

the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for extending the

duration of Meshal’s traffic stop, at least at this stage of the pro-

ceedings.6 See Fortner, 983 F.2d at 1028 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

6 We note that although Meshal’s complaint adequately alleged a violation of

clearly established law, development of the factual record through discovery

may bring to light new information that could affect the qualified immunity

analysis. And the officers are free to reassert qualified immunity on a motion

for summary judgment and at trial, if there is one, See Behrens v. Pelletier,

516 U.S. 299, 306 (1996); Jackson v. City of Atlanta, 97 F.4th 1343, 1355 n.5 (11th

Cir. 2024); Butler v. Smith, 85 F.4th 1102, 1118 n.6 (11th Cir. 2023); Cottrell v.

Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1487 (11th Cir. 1996).

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 24 of 25

24 Opinion of the Court 23-10128

B. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity

for searching Meshal’s truck.

Besides his seizure claim, Meshal also brought a claim for the

unlawful search of his truck, based on his allegation that Frink, at

the apparent invitation of Januf ka, “opened the passenger side

door of the semi-truck and physically lifted his dog into the cabin

of the vehicle” before “enter[ing] the truck himself ” for “approxi-

mately a minute and a half.” Doc. 1 at 7–8. Based on the allegations

in the complaint, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity

from this claim.

Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires officers to ob-

tain a warrant supported by probable cause before searching a per-

son’s property. United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889, 910 (11th Cir.

2020). Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment,

however, “officers may search an automobile without having ob-

tained a warrant so long as they have probable cause to do so.” Col-

lins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586, 592 (2018). Probable cause to search a

vehicle exists where an officer could conclude that “there is a fair

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in

the vehicle.” United States v. Tamari, 454 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have already explained that, under Meshal’s version of

events, the officers lacked arguable reasonable suspicion of a crime

sufficient to detain Meshal longer than it would have taken to check

his license and registration and write his traffic ticket. That neces-

sarily means that they lacked arguable probable cause to search

USCA11 Case: 23-10128 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2024 Page: 25 of 25

23-10128 Opinion of the Court 25

Meshal’s truck for contraband or evidence of a crime. See United

States v. Clark, 32 F.4th 1080, 1087 n.1 (11th Cir. 2022) (recognizing

that “reasonable suspicion . . . is a lower standard than probable

cause”). Further, it was clearly established at the relevant time that

arguable probable cause was required. See United States v. Lanzon,

639 F.3d 1293, 1299–1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (“For a warrantless search

of an automobile to be constitutional . . . there must be probable

cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a

crime.”). Without arguable probable cause, the officers are not en-

titled to qualified immunity for searching Meshal’s truck.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial

of qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.