The opinion
Case: 13-11818 Date Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11818
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-04064-TCB
KIMBERLY E. BRACEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELIZABETH A. JOLLEY,
in her individual capacity,
ANDREW SILBERMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 11, 2014)
Before ANDERSON and EBEL,* Circuit Judges, and UNGARO,** District Judge.
___________________
*Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
**Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
Case: 13-11818 Date Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
We have had the benefit of oral argument, and have carefully considered the
arguments of the parties, the analysis of the district court, and relevant parts of the
record. For many of the reasons set forth by the district court and for the reasons
fully explored at oral argument, we conclude that the judgment of the district court
should be affirmed. In light of the objective evidence indicating that plaintiff had
sold the car three days before she reported it stolen, 1 and in light of the officers’
reasonable belief that the Motor Vehicle Division would not have transferred the
title to Alvarado-Valle after the vehicle had been listed as stolen on the GCIC
(Georgia Criminal Information Center), we cannot conclude that the officers lost
their qualified immunity protection merely because they failed to take several
additional investigative steps urged by plaintiff. Rather, this case falls comfortably
within the established law that “a police officer is not required to explore and
eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an
arrest.” Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1229 (11th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). A reasonable officer under the
circumstances facing the defendant officers in this case could have believed that
probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff. With respect to plaintiff’s argument that
the warrant affidavit contained misstatements and omissions, the plaintiff has
1
The evidence was obtained by the officers from the database customarily used by
law enforcement to access information recorded in the Motor Vehicle Division.
2
Case: 13-11818 Date Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 3 of 3
failed to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to intentional falsity or reckless
disregard for the truth. We conclude that plaintiff has failed to create genuine
issues of material fact with respect to her federal or state claims.
It is regrettable that mistakes in the law enforcement operations led in this
case to an unfortunate arrest of the plaintiff, resulting in inconvenience,
embarrassment and expense to the plaintiff. 2 However, for the foregoing reasons,
we cannot conclude that the district court erred in holding that these officers were
protected by qualified immunity.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2
Management obviously will want to investigate how and why an unlikely event
occurred in this case – i.e., that a transfer of the title to the vehicle was allowed notwithstanding
the fact that the vehicle was already listed as stolen on the NCIC and GCIC (National and
Georgia Criminal Information Centers) databases. Similarly, management will want to
investigate the propriety of listing the purchase date of a transfer of vehicular title on GRATIS
(Georgia Registration and Title Information System) rather than, for example, the date that the
application for title transfer is filed with the Motor Vehicle Division; only the latter is
independently verified by the relevant public official. Management may also want to consider
the propriety of additional training to its law enforcement officers in an effort to reduce the
possibility of repetition of similar mistakes.
3