A Lakeland girl will not receive a new trial over claims she was wrongly arrested for allegedly stalking and harassing 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick, who killed herself in 2013 over alleged bullying by classmates.

The case raises questions about what constitutes unlawful search and seizure when arresting children. And although the appellate panel acknowledged the arrest had "a devastating effect" on the plaintiff, it determined the officers' actions were not unlawful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found it was reasonable for Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd and his deputy Jonathan McKinney to have concluded that Katelyn Roman, who was 12 at the time, had willfully, maliciously and repeatedly harassed her estranged best friend, even though the charges were ultimately dropped.

|

What happened?

Sedwick jumped off a silo at an abandoned cement plant in 2013.

Roman and another girl were arrested about a month later.

Roman was released after six hours but the media caught wind of the case, according to a lawsuit brought by her mother Roseann Gill, which claimed Roman was publicly blamed for the death and labeled a cyber bully.

Roman claimed she never bullied Sedwick. Her mother's lawsuit on her behalf described the investigation as a "witch hunt." It argued police violated Roman's Fourth Amendment rights by entering her home and arresting her without a warrant, probable cause or consent.

According to McKinney's arrest affidavit, the deputy had interviewed four middle school students—three of whom claimed Roman had bullied Sedwick, and another who had said the girls were best friends until Roman ended the relationship. It was undisputed, however, that the two girls hadn't had contact in the seven months before Sedwick's death, according to the opinion.

But Roman's mother quoted and attached that affidavit to her complaint, claiming it showed McKinney had found nothing more than a "common middle-school-age rift."

But the move backfired and only served to undermine the lawsuit, as the district court found the affidavit proved probable cause.

The appellate panel agreed.

|

Nonverbal consent?

When U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven in the Middle District of Florida dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment on others, jurors were left to answer just one question: Did McKinney enter the plaintiff's home without consent? They answered "no," because verbal and nonverbal cues from the plaintiff's father had constituted consent.

The Eleventh Circuit found this case stood apart from others that had found that police had coerced their way into homes, In this case, the court found no officers appeared to have had their guns drawn, used force or threats, or falsely claimed to have had a warrant.

Testimony revealed that McKinney had told Roman's father he was there to arrest her, and officers claimed the father had opened the door and stepped back. The opinion said Roman's father testified that, "I stood there and then they just kind of went in and I backed up," but conceded no one bumped or pushed him as they entered.

The plaintiff also took issue with Scriven's answer to a question from jurors about the door through which officers had entered, described as a screened-in porch in the opinion. It was barely mentioned at trial, but on the second day of deliberations jurors asked, "By law, is the screened-in front porch considered a part of the house?"

A dispute ensued over how the judge should answer, according to the opinion, which said Scriven replied, "For the purposes of this case, no." Roman's counsel claimed that information was irrelevant to the case and moved for a mistrial, but was denied.

That argument came back to bite the plaintiff, as the appellate panel found that because they'd argued the door was irrelevant, they couldn't now use it to seek a reversal.

"There's a simple reason K.C.R. can't find a 'scintilla of evidence' in the record about whether the screened-in porch constituted part of the house and whether McKinney could walk through it," the opinion said. "She didn't raise the issue."

The plaintiff's appeal was marred by other late arguments the Eleventh Circuit refused to consider, one of which was a claim that there was no proof McKinney knew the facts outlined in his affidavit when he arrested Roman.

"It was never raised in the district court, not even a little bit," the opinion said, later adding, "She may not switch theories and transform her position on appeal."

The panel also highlighted that argument likely didn't hold water, because McKinney signed the affidavit on the same day as the arrest.

Plaintiffs attorneys Howard Marks of Burr & Forman in Orlando and Lawrence Walters of Walters Law Group in Longwood and defense attorneys Jonathan Trohn, Hank Campbell and Jennifer Vasquez of Campbell Trohn Tamayo & Aranda in Lakeland did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Chief Circuit Judge Ed Carnes wrote the opinion, with Judges Beverly Martin and Lanier Anderson III concurring.

|

Read the court opinion:

|

More appeals: