The opinion
Case: 16-11798 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11798
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00174-JRH-BKE
SUSAN TREAT,
ASHLEY WALKER,
Individually and next Friend and Mother of
Madison Walker,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
DANIEL T. LOWE,
Defendant - Appellant,
MATTHEW P. PERKINS,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 8, 2016)
Case: 16-11798 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Susan Treat and Ashley Walker 1 filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that Daniel Lowe, an investigator with the Burke County Sheriff’s Office
in Florida, violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by unlawfully
entering and searching their residence without a search warrant or exigent
circumstances and by unlawfully seizing and detaining them at gunpoint. Lowe
had entered their home by mistake; he was supposed to execute a search warrant
two doors down.2 Lowe moved for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity. The district court denied the motion, concluding that a jury could find
that Lowe failed to engage in reasonable efforts to avoid erroneously executing the
search warrant and that his failure violated Treat and Walker’s clearly established
constitutional rights.
Lowe appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on Treat and
Walker’s § 1983 claims. 3 After careful review, we find no error in the district
court’s thorough and well-reasoned order. The bulk of Lowe’s arguments on
1
Walker filed the complaint in her individual capacity and as next friend and mother of
her minor daughter, M.W.
2
Treat and Walker also sued Matthew Perkins, an investigator with the Richmond
County Sheriff’s Office, for his participation in the entry, search, and seizure. The district court
denied Perkins’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and Perkins did
not appeal that decision.
3
The district court also rendered judgment in favor of Lowe on Treat and Walker’s state
law claims, finding that he was entitled to official immunity as relevant to those claims. This
disposition is not at issue on appeal.
2
Case: 16-11798 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 3 of 4
appeal concern the district court’s analysis of our decision in Hartsfield v.
Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995), as it pertains to this case. We agree with
the district court’s thoughtful examination of Hartsfield.
Lowe cites an unpublished decision of this Court rendered after the district
court denied him qualified immunity, White v. McLain, No. 15-15270, __ F. App’x
__, 2016 WL 1566639 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2016), as illustrative of why the district
court’s analysis of Hartsfield was erroneous. Specifically, Lowe argues that White
makes plain that “Hartsfield did not give Lowe fair warning that participating in a
search team with a role limited to making arrests would make him responsible for
ensuring the warrant was executed at the correct location, especially when he
expressly understood this was not his job.” Appellant’s Br. at 28. We disagree.
As a preliminary matter, Lowe’s role clearly was not limited to making
arrests: he was executing a search warrant at a designated location. Moreover,
White—which does not bind this panel—stands only for the proposition that it is
not clearly established “that an officer’s well-intentioned attempts to ascertain and
identify the property described in a warrant are not reasonable simply because they
lead to an error, or because more accurate means of ascertaining the property’s
identity were available.” 2016 WL 1566639, at *3. The White panel contrasted its
facts with those in Hartsfield, where the officer in question “‘did nothing to make
sure’” he had the correct address and was denied qualified immunity. Id. at *4
3
Case: 16-11798 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 4 of 4
(quoting Hartsfield, 50 F.3d at 955). As the district court explained here, viewing
the facts in the light most favorable to Treat and Walker, Lowe did not engage in
“well-intentioned attempts,” but rather “did nothing” to ascertain the correct
address at which to execute the search warrant. Id. at *3-4. White, therefore, is
inapposite.
We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Lowe.
AFFIRMED.
4