11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 5.3

Person Alleging Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Search, or Unlawful Terry Stop

In this case, [name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant], while acting

under color of law intentionally committed acts that violated [name of plaintiff]'s

constitutional right[s] [not to be arrested without probable cause] [not to be

subjected to an unreasonable search of one’s home or dwelling] [not to be

subjected to an unreasonable investigatory stop].

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, every

person has the right [not to be arrested without probable cause] [not to be

subjected to an unreasonable search of one’s home or dwelling] [not to be

subjected to an unreasonable investigatory stop].

To succeed on this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove each of the

following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:

First: That [name of defendant] intentionally committed acts that

violated [name of plaintiff]’s constitutional right [not to be arrested without

probable cause] [not to be subjected to an unreasonable search of one’s home

or dwelling] [not to be subjected to an unreasonable investigatory stop];

Second: That [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [name of plaintiff]’s

injuries; and.

2

Third: That [name of defendant] acted under color of law. [The parties

have agreed that [name of defendant] acted under color of law, so you should

accept that as a proven fact.]

(First element for unlawful arrest claims):

[For the first element, [name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]

arrested [name of plaintiff] without probable cause. [Name of defendant] may

arrest a person without a warrant whenever the facts and circumstances within

[name of defendant]’s knowledge, based on reasonably trustworthy

information, would cause a reasonable officer to believe that the person has

committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. It is a criminal

offense for any person to [describe criminal offense [name of plaintiff] was

alleged to have committed].]

(First element for unlawful search claims):

[For the first element, [name of plaintiff] claims there was an

unreasonable search of [his/her] home. The Constitution protects against

unreasonable searches. The general rule is that a law enforcement official must

get a search warrant from a judicial officer before conducting any search of a

home. But there are certain exceptions to this general rule. One exception is [a

search conducted by consent. If a person in lawful possession of a home freely

3

and voluntarily invites or consents to a search, law enforcement officers may

reasonably and lawfully conduct the search to the extent of the consent]

[recognized in emergency situations in which a law enforcement officer may enter

and make a safety inspection for the purpose of ensuring or protecting the

officer’s and others’ wellbeing. But the officer must have a reasonable and good

faith belief that there is a serious threat to the officer’s safety or the safety of

someone else].]

(First element for unlawful Terry stop claims):

For the first element, [name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was subjected

to an unreasonable investigatory stop. [Name of plaintiff] may succeed in

showing that the investigatory stop was unreasonable if [he/she] proves either

that [name of defendant] did not have a reasonable suspicion that [name of

plaintiff] was involved in, or was about to be involved in, criminal activity; or that

the stop was not reasonable in scope.

A reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting

an individual of criminal activity. To determine whether the scope of the stop

is reasonable, you should consider the law enforcement purposes served by the

stop, the diligence with which the officer[s] pursued investigation, the

intrusiveness of the stop, and the length of the stop. In making these

4

determinations, you should consider the totality of the circumstances and

focus on all of the information available to [name of defendant] at the time that

the officer[s] executed the stop.

For the second element, [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [name

of plaintiff]’s injuries if [name of plaintiff] would not have been injured

without [name of defendant]’s conduct, and the injuries were a reasonably

foreseeable consequence of [name of defendant]’s conduct.

[For the third element, you must decide whether [name of defendant]

acted under color of law. A government official acts “under color” of law when

acting within the limits of lawful authority. [He/She] also acts under color of law

when [he/she] claims to be performing an official duty but [his/her] acts are

outside the limits of lawful authority and abusive in manner, or [he/she] acts in

a way that misuses [his/her] power and is able to do so only because [he/she]

is an official.]

If you find [name of plaintiff] has proved each fact that [he/she] must

prove, you must decide the issue of [his/her] damages. If you find that [name of

plaintiff] has not proved each of these facts, then you must find for [name of

defendant].

NOTE: Model Jury Interrogatory Forms may be found in the appendices

5

after the last civil rights jury instruction (Number 5.13) for use in actions brought

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three types of Model Jury Interrogatory Forms are

provided: (A) a simplified Interrogatory Form for use in most civil right actions;

(B) an Interrogatory Form for use in actions that do not require application of

the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and (C) an Interrogatory Form for use in actions

that do require application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.