Giraldo v. City of Hollywood Florida
2015 WL 6735225, 142 F.Supp.3d 1292, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150542 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from claims of unlawful arrest when they have arguable probable cause, which can be established by a victim's sworn statement that is corroborated by physical evidence. A municipality is not liable for a custom of gender discrimination under § 1983 based solely on training materials that mention 'physical size' as a factor and statistical disparities in arrest rates, especially when an overarching official policy prohibits gender-based profiling.
Facts:
- Christian Giraldo called 911 to his home to report a domestic dispute between himself and his girlfriend, Aurora Hemandez-Calvino.
- Responding officers, including Michael Malone, Raul Toledo, and Brittany Schendel, separated the couple for interviews as per protocol.
- Hemandez-Calvino told Officer Toledo that a verbal argument had escalated and that Giraldo had pinned her on the bed.
- Giraldo overheard this account and attempted to interrupt the interview to explain his side of the story.
- After Giraldo was removed from the apartment, Hemandez-Calvino provided the officers with a sworn complaint affidavit.
- In her affidavit, Hemandez-Calvino stated that Giraldo removed light bulbs so she could not see, threw and broke a remote, grabbed her from behind, and threw her on the bed.
- Officers on scene observed physical evidence corroborating Hemandez-Calvino's account, including a bed in disarray, a smashed remote control, and light bulbs that had been removed from their sockets.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Christian Giraldo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the City of Hollywood and three of its police officers in their individual capacities.
- The operative complaint was the Third Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The individual officer defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity.
- The City of Hollywood filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing against claims of municipal liability and First Amendment retaliation.
- The City of Hollywood also filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Giraldo's expert witness.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police officers entitled to qualified immunity for a domestic violence arrest based on the alleged victim's corroborated complaint, and is the employing municipality liable for an unconstitutional policy or custom of gender discrimination based on its training materials and arrest statistics?
Opinions:
Majority - Dimitrouleas, J.
Yes. The police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and the City of Hollywood is not liable for an unconstitutional policy or custom. The officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Giraldo because they reasonably relied on Hemandez-Calvino's sworn complaint, which was corroborated by physical evidence at the scene (a broken remote, removed light bulbs, and a disheveled bed). The court found no circumstances that would make reliance on her statement unreasonable. Furthermore, the City of Hollywood is not liable because Giraldo failed to establish a municipal policy or custom of gender discrimination. The city's training materials mentioning 'physical size' as one of many factors, and statistical evidence showing more men are arrested for domestic violence, are insufficient to prove a discriminatory custom, especially when an official, overarching city policy explicitly prohibits gender-based profiling in establishing probable cause.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the formidable nature of the qualified immunity defense, demonstrating that 'arguable probable cause' shields officers from liability even if probable cause did not actually exist, so long as a reasonable officer could have believed it did. It highlights that a victim's credible and corroborated statement is a powerful basis for establishing such cause. The decision also illustrates the high bar for establishing municipal liability under Monell, clarifying that facially neutral policies and raw statistical data, without more direct evidence of a widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct, are insufficient to prove a custom or usage with the force of law.
