# Kingdom v. City of Riviera Beach

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · October 12, 2005 · 154 F. App'x 131

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/42254

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen KINGDOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RIVIERA BEACH, CITY OF, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendant, Claude Cosby, III, Individually and as Police Officer for the City of Riviera Beach, FL, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** October 12, 2005
- **Citations:** 154 F. App'x 131
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Birch, Dubina, Barkett
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/42254

## Opinion text

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10870 October 12, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 04-80042-CV-DTKH

KAREN KINGDOM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RIVERA BEACH, CITY OF,
a Florida Municipal Corporation,

Defendant,

CLAUDE COSBY, III,
individually and as police officer
for the City of Riviera Beach, FL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________

(October 12, 2005)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant/Defendant, Claude Cosby, III (“Officer Cosby”), appeals from the

district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment based on qualified

immunity in an action brought by Appellee/Plaintiff, Karen Kingdom

(“Kingdom”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We review a district court’s order denying summary judgment based on

qualified immunity de novo. Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir.

1999).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that

the district court correctly denied summary judgment to Officer Cosby because

Officer Cosby had notice that his actions toward Kingdom violated her clearly

established Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. In

Broward v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 109 S. Ct. 1378, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628

(1989), the United States Supreme Court defined a “seizure” within the Fourth

Amendment context as a “governmental termination of freedom of movement

through means intentionally applied.” Id. at 597, 109 S. Ct. at 1381. In Inyo, the

Supreme Court held that a police road block intentionally created to stop a fleeing

felon met this definition, where the physical obstacle of the road block had the

2
intended effect. Id. at 598-99, 109 S. Ct. at 1382. In the present case, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to Kingdom, we agree with the district court

that sufficient evidence exists from which a jury could find that officer Cosby

commanded innocent motorists to stop through display of his police authority and

that his conduct constituted a “means intentionally applied” to seize Kingdom and

others. We also agree with the district court’s finding that Kingdom’s Fourth

Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established in

May, 2002.

In sum, because we see no merit to any of the arguments Cosby makes in

this appeal, we affirm the district court’s order denying his motion for summary

judgment based on qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/42254. Public record. Not legal advice.