On April 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Fleuranville v. Mia. Dade County[i], in which the court examined whether detectives did a sufficient investigation regarding rape allegations. The relevant facts of Fleuranville, taken directly from the case, are as follows:
On May 11, 2018, a 74-year-old woman accused her son, Fleuranville, of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions. The victim disclosed the sexual assaults to her daughter. The arrest affidavit contained the following statement:
The victim advised that on an unknown date in November 2017, the subject called her into a bedroom in her single-family residence. Once inside, the subject pushed her onto the floor, removed her clothing and forced penile vaginal intercourse on her. She advised that she attempted to resist the defendant but she was unable to do so due to his strength. During a struggle, the defendant became upset and slapped her several times. The victim further advised that at the conclusion of the sexual assault, the defendant demanded she perform fellatio on him and she refused. Thereafter, the defendant stood up and kicked her several times. After kicking her, the defendant threatened to kill her if she called the police or told anyone of the sexual battery. The victim stated she was in fear for her life. As a result, she was unable to leave the home for several days.
Fleuranville was arrested on twelve felony counts for sexual battery, kidnapping, and battery on the elderly on May 11, 2018. On May 31, 2018, the sexual battery charges were no actioned, and the charges were amended to one count of kidnapping and one count of battery. On July 25, 2019, the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges against Fleuranville, and the case was closed.[ii]
Fleuranville filed suit against the officers in federal court and alleged that they violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment with regard to false arrest and malicious prosecution. He also sued for similar state law violations. He argued that his mother suffers from dementia and other mental illness, he denied inappropriately touching his mother, and he alleged that law enforcement officers were “familiar with the alleged victim, as she has called the police to the home on numerous occasions for various complaint(s) which were all unfounded.”[iii] The defendant officers filed motions to dismiss and argued that they had probable cause to arrest, thus they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted the officer’s motions to dismiss. Fleuranville appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The first issue on appeal was whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by falsely arresting him. The court of appeals first discussed the legal principals relevant to this issue and stated
To succeed on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must establish (1) a lack of probable cause and (2) an arrest.” Richmond v. Badia, 47 F.4th 1172, 1180 (11th Cir. 2022). “Accordingly, when the government has probable cause to arrest someone, a false arrest claim necessarily fails.” Id.
In the context of an arrest, probable cause exists “when the facts, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer, establish ‘a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity.'” Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4th 891, 898-99 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 (2018)). In assessing whether there was probable cause for an arrest, we “ask whether a reasonable officer could conclude that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity.” Id. at 902 (quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Probable cause does not require conclusive evidence and is not a high bar.” Id. at 899 (quotation marks omitted).[iv]
On appeal, Fleuranville argued that the police should have done a more thorough investigation. Specifically, in his amended complaint, he alleged that the police did not obtain a rape kit, there were no medical records, no investigation from adult protective services, no evidence of kidnapping, no other evidence of sexual abuse, no physical injuries, and no polygraph was performed. Thus, he argued that, rather than relying on the statement from his mother (the alleged victim), they should have done more, and without the additional investigation, he argued that a reasonable police officer would not believe that he committed the offenses for which he was charged.
The court of appeals noted that they have previously held
[T]hat “[g]enerally, an officer is entitled to rely on a victim’s criminal complaint as support for probable cause.” Rankin v. Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998).[v]
The court discussed that, in Rankin, they held that, under the specific facts of that case, the police were not entitled to rely only on the victim’s statement to establish probable cause because the victim was a child and inconsistencies in the child’s statement made the statement unreliable. However, in Rankin, the Eleventh Circuit held that there was other evidence that, in conjunction with the statement, did establish probable cause.
In Fleuranville’s case, the court of appeals noted that the victim provided very detailed statements to the police identifying Fleuranville as her rapist. These statements were provided in the arrest affidavit. Additionally, the court noted that the victim had also disclosed to her daughter that she had been raped. Therefore, the court of appeals held that the officers
[H]ad probable cause to arrest Fleuranville because they could rely on the victim’s statements that Fleuranville had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions.[vi]
Since the officers had probable cause, the court held that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim because one of the elements needed to be proven in a false arrest claim is that the officer’s lacked probable cause. Additionally, probable cause also barred the state law claim, therefore that claim was also dismissed.
The second issue was whether the officer violated the Fourth Amendment based on malicious prosecution. The court of appeals stated
The elements of malicious prosecution require Fleuranville to show [1] the officials instituted criminal process against him “with malice and [2] without probable cause” and [3] the prosecution against him terminated in his favor. Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2020).[vii]
Again, because the court held that probable cause was present in this case, this claim also failed, as did his state law claim.
Therefore, the court of appeals held the district did not err in determining the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and, as such, affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, under both federal and state law.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
___________________________________________
[i] No. 24-11741 (11th Cir. April 4, 2025 Non-Argument)
[ii] Id. at 1-3
[iii] Id. at 4
[iv] Id. at 5 (emphasis added)
[v] Id. at 6 (emphasis added)
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id. at 7-8 (emphasis added)
