Claudette Jones v. Sheriff of Broward County, et al, No. 14-14678 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14678 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14678 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ District Court No. 0:12-cv-60180-WJZ CLAUDETTE JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, ADALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Individually, GREGORY LOSE, Individually, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Florida _______________ (April 17, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 14-14678 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: In this case, Plaintiff Claudette Jones pulled her car into a bank’s handicapped parking space without a handicapped parking placard hanging from her rear view mirror or an appropriate parking sticker on her car’s license plate. Defendant Gregory Lose, a police officer monitoring the handicapped parking spaces—because, according to the bank, they were being used unlawfully— approached Jones and asked to see her driver’s license. Jones refused Officer Lose’s request, stating: “You have no right to see that.” Officer Lose therefore arrested her. In Count I of Jones’s amended complaint, she alleged that this encounter constituted a “stop and seizure” in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 1 Officer Lose pled the defense of qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted Officer Lose’s motion for summary judgment on Count I. Jones appeals. We affirm. First, Officer Lose had arguable reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. And when Jones refused to show him her driver’s license, Officer Lose had arguable probable cause to arrest her for driving without a current driver’s license. AFFIRMED. 1 We assume that Count I was brought under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655–56, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691–92, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
