Police officers were acting within the scope of their employment when they arrested a man suspected of animal abuse, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in a ruling clarifying the standard of review for gauging immunity in civil suits against police officers.

Although a lower court had green-lit the case over doubts about probable cause, 11th Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, who wrote the majority's July 26 opinion, focused on whether a reasonable person could conclude that the officers' conduct "falls within the exceptions" to immunity.

"The district court erred in this case when it applied the legal malice standard — instead of the actual malice standard — and determined that an arrest without probable cause by itself establishes that the officers acted with malice for purposes of § 768.28(9)(a). It doesn't," Carnes wrote, noting it is undisputed that the officers were acting within their employment duties.