Victory: Broward County Officers Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity for Arresting Innocent Woman in Case of Mistaken Identity
Lawsuit against officers who overlooked obvious evidence they were arresting the wrong woman can move forward
IJ is a public interest law firm. We represent clients free of charge in cutting-edge litigation defending vital constitutional rights. You can join us by supporting our work here: ij.org/support
MIAMI—On Wednesday, United States District Court Judge Melissa Damian ruled a Texas woman’s lawsuit against the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and several deputies of the department for a 2022 mistaken identity arrest can move forward. Judge Damian denied the county’s motion to dismiss the case brought by Jennifer Heath Box and her attorneys from the Institute for Justice (IJ), meaning Jennifer’s case can move forward.
In the opinion, Judge Damian wrote that it violates the Fourth Amendment to put the wrong person in jail when there are “observable differences between the individual and the person described in the warrant and there was plenty of time for officers to verify the identity of the person being arrested but the officers ignored red flags and arrested the person anyways.”
The court also ruled that the deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials from being held liable when they violate someone’s rights unless that right is “clearly established.”
“This Court finds that Eleventh Circuit case law provides several materially similar decisions that would provide the Deputies a fair warning that their conduct was unlawful,” the opinion reads.
Jennifer was arrested getting off a cruise ship in Port Everglades following a family trip on Christmas Eve 2022, and spent three days in jail, before finally being released. Police had a warrant for a different Jennifer—Jennifer Delcarmen Heath—who was 23 years younger; five inches shorter; and had a different hair color, eye color, skin tone, social security number, and home address. Deputies Peter Peraza, Monica Jean, Jasmine Hines and Anthony Thorpe all at various points overlooked the evidence on the warrant which proved they had the wrong Jennifer, but moved forward with the arrest and detention anyway.
“This whole experience has been traumatizing, so I’m very happy that my lawsuit can move forward and I can finally seek justice for what happened to me,” said Jennifer. “When I was in jail, nobody would listen to me that they had arrested the wrong person, and now it feels like somebody is finally listening.”
“Wednesday’s decision makes it clear that when police overlook obvious evidence that they’re arresting the wrong person, they’ll be held accountable,” said IJ Attorney Jared McClain. “Anyone who looked at Jennifer should have been able to tell she was not the person police wanted.”
Jennifer and IJ filed the lawsuit last September, seeking to hold the officers responsible for her arrest accountable.
UK woman says she was arrested after confiscating her daughters’ iPads
This article is more than 9 months old
Vanessa Brown called police response in Cobham, Surrey, ‘a complete overreaction’ that left her ‘catatonic’
A history teacher has said she was arrested and blocked from seeing her daughters after she confiscated their iPads.
Vanessa Brown, 50, described her “unspeakable devastation and trauma” after spending seven-and-a-half hours in a cell on 26 March after a claim that she had stolen two iPads.
She was later released with bail conditions that barred her from speaking to anyone connected to the investigation – including her children – until the case was dropped.
Brown told LBC she had taken the iPads to encourage her daughters to focus on their schoolwork. Surrey police tracked the devices to Brown’s mother’s house in Cobham, Surrey, and later accepted the devices belonged to her children and she was “entitled” to confiscate them.
“I find it quite traumatic even talking about this now,” Brown said.
“At no point did [the officers] think to themselves, ‘Oh, this is a little bit of an overreaction for a moment, confiscating temporarily her [own] iPads and popping over to her mum’s to have a coffee’. It was just a complete overreaction.”
She added: “It was thoroughly unprofessional. They were speaking to my mother, who is in her 80s, like she was a criminal.”
Surrey police said a search for the devices began after a man in his 40s reported the theft of two iPads to officers who attended an address in Cobham, following a report of a “concern for safety”.
Ch Supt Aimee Ramm, Surrey police’s northern divisional commander, said: “This led officers to carry out further enquiries at a second address, where a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied any knowledge of their whereabouts.
“However, a tracking device on the iPads showed that they were at the address. Officers encouraged the woman to return the items and resolve the matter, however the woman did not cooperate and therefore she was arrested on suspicion of theft. A search was then carried out using post-arrest powers and the iPads were located.
“During this time, officers called South East Coast ambulance to attend the address following a further concern for safety.”
Brown told LBC she was taken to Staines police station, where she was searched and had fingerprints and custody shots taken, before being placed in a cell.
She said she was not able to return to her mother’s home until almost 12 hours after police first arrived, and was left in a “catatonic state” as a result of the experience.skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to First Edition
Free daily newsletter
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
Enter your email address
Marketing preferences
Get updates about our journalism and ways to support and enjoy our work.Sign up
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Brown also reported that officers pulled one of her daughters out of a class at school in relation to the matter.
“They were able to send a police car with police officers to my children’s school, they were able to send another police car or two to arrest me … I know people are making reports of thefts, of assaults and very violent crimes in and around our neighbourhood – and they’re not getting a response for days.
“I cannot get to the bottom of why [my arrest] was done in such a quick turnaround – maybe less than an hour. All these police cars and police officers going into address over a completely false report of a theft.”
Surrey police said Brown was released on conditional bail while further enquiries were carried out to establish the ownership of the iPads.
Ramm said: “The police bail conditions included not speaking to anyone connected to the investigation, including her daughters, while officers carried out their enquiries.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children. The case was therefore closed the following day with no further action being taken and the bail conditions which had been set were then no longer applicable.
“Officers did attend the daughter’s school – however this was in relation to the initial concern for safety.”
We know this is annoying … so here is 50% off
Seeing these messages can be repetitive. We know that. (Imagine what it’s like writing them … )
But it’s also extremely important. One of the Guardian’s most valuable assets is its reader funding.
1. Reader funding means we can cover what we like. We’re not beholden to the political whims of a billionaire owner. No one can tell us what not to say or what not to report.
2. Reader funding means we don’t have to chase clicks and traffic. We’re not desperately seeking your attention for the sake of it: we pursue the stories that our editorial team deems important, and believe are worthy of your time.
3. Reader funding means we can keep our website open, allowing as many people as possible to read quality journalism from around the world – especially those who live in places where the free press is in peril.
Right now, the Guardian’s work is funded by just 2.4% of our regular readers. We know that not everyone can afford to pay for news, but if it would help to convince you to support us, we’d love to offer readers like you in Vietnam 50% off an All-access digital subscription for the first six months, until Saturday 31 January. We value whatever you can spare, but choosing an All-access digital subscription enables greater investment in our most crucial, fearless journalism. As our thanks to you, we can offer you some great benefits (including making these messages go away). We’ve made it quick and easy to set up, so we hope you’ll consider it. Thank you.
Bodycam shows arrest of Alabama woman wearing penis costume at protest: ‘This is a family town’
Full bodycam footage of arrest of Fairhope woman dressed in penis costume
Newly released bodycam footage shows a Fairhope police colonel confronting and arresting a 61-year-old grandmother dressed in an inflatable penis costume during a protest last month.
The footage, provided to AL.com by Renea Gamble’s legal team, captures Col. Andrew Babb telling Gamble her costume would not be tolerated in a “town that has values.”
“I’m not going to sit here and argue with you,” Babb says in the video. “If my kids came by here to see this, how would I explain this?”
Gamble responds, “Are you recording?”
Babb replies, “How would you explain to my children what you are supposed to be? This is a family town. I’m not going to have someone out here dressed like this. It’s abusive.” He later adds, “I would hate for her grandkids to see her like this.”
Gamble’s attorneys filed a 13-page brief seeking dismissal of misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest based on the camera footage. The filing argues the arrest violated her First Amendment rights as she was engaged in political protest during the Oct. 18 “No Kings” demonstration along Greeno Road.
The case is being heard in Fairhope Municipal Court and is due for trial on Jan. 7, 2026.
The arrest and images of a grandmother in an inflatable penis costume have generated national media attention, including being featured by late-night comedian Stephen Colbert.
First Amendment cases
The court filing cites several examples offensive public spectacles that Americans have tolerated in the past. The list included Nazis marching through a town of Holocaust survivors to Ku Klux Klan cross burnings, flag‑destroying protesters and the Westboro Baptist Church disrupting military funerals.
Those examples, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, were cited as why charges against Gamble should be dismissed.
“Can one deny that each of these actions would be more offensive to more people than a protester in an anatomically imprecise phallic costume?” wrote attorneys David Gespass and Kathleen Johnson in the court brief.
Gamble’s offense, according to court documents, was wearing a cartoonish penis costume purchased at a Spirit Halloween store in Foley and worn during the protest alongside Greeno Road in Fairhope. The filing notes it was the last inflatable penis costume available at the seasonal store.
“Until (police) arrived, no one present appeared so offended by Ms. Gamble’s costume as to be ready to fight over it,” the court filing reads. “If anything, it was aimed at Donald Trump, who was in no position to begin fisticuffs as he was, by all accounts, nowhere near Fairhope.”
Police Encounter
The body-worn and dash camera footage shows that Babb grabbed the back of Gamble’s costume and pulled her to the ground. Another officer joined to help get Gamble in handcuffs as she laid face down on the ground wearing the costume.
Protesters can be heard in the background shouting, “that’s absurd” and “she’s not doing anything.”
Babb responds that “it’s disorderly conduct.”
Gamble’s lawyersquestion whether the “officer’s delicate sensibilities” rendered Gamble’s First Amendment protections to protest as moot. They argue that her political expression should be protected like other controversial or offensive speech.
“Indeed, one must ask, who would suffer more trauma and be more offended,” their filing says. “Would it be the Jewish resident of Skokie, survivors of concentration camps and no doubt already affected by post-traumatic stress disorder from their experiences in Nazi Germany?”
It continues, “do the feelings of the fragile families of Fairhope facing a fabric phallus compare? Unless one can answer that Fairhope’s families suffer more from Ms. Gamble’s distorted phallus costume than … the other examples, there can be no probable cause for her arrest. To channel Babb, what are those parents support tell their children?”
City Response
Fairhope Mayor Sherry Sullivan declined to comment about “potential or pending litigation.” Fairhope Police Lt. Shane Nolte, a spokesperson for the department, did not respond to a request for comment.
Last month, Sullivan said while people have the right to protest and express themselves in Fairhope, they expect “all protest(s) to be peaceful” and should not include material viewed as profane or obscene.
Political Speech Argument
The court filing questions why Gamble’s costume would be considered obscene.
“Ms. Gamble’s costume, taken in conjunction with her ‘No dick-tator’ sign, is clearly and undeniably a political statement, not some sexually explicit attempt to appeal to prurient interests,” the filing states. “Political speech is at the very core of the First Amendment. No speech is entitled to greater protection. It need not be bland or vanilla. It can even be offensive to some.”
The filing also criticizes Babb for lecturing Gamble about proper behavior for his “kids.”
“He certainly could explain to his children that, in the United States, people’s freedom of speech is protected, even if others are offended or upset by it,” the filing says. “That, he could have said, is a core American value, embedded in our Constitution. It really would not be that difficult.”
Arrest Footage
The filing says that while police removed Gamble’s costume, they did not take her flag or her sign into evidence.
“All of this is further proof that none of the officers involved gave the slightest consideration to the circumstance, part of the totality, that Ms. Gamble was engaging in political speech,” the filing says. “They care so little for that consideration that they did not consider either the flag or the sign as potential evidence.”
Body camera footage also showed Gamble telling the police she was in pain, unable to see and shouting that her hands were “killing me” while handcuffed.
At one point, she is asked to provide her name.
“I’m antifa,” she says.
“I’m not trying to be difficult with you, ma’am,” Babb is recorded as saying after Gamble’s costume was removed. “I’m not trying to violate your freedom of speech. I’m trying to preserve a town that has values.”
After the costume is removed, Gamble yells out to the crowd, “I’m an American. Who knew, I had rights. Who knew?”
Protesters continue to chant at the police, “shame on you.”
The court filing says Gamble did not resist arrest, calling her handcuffing by police “anything but lawful. She therefore had a right to resist.”
Any difficulty police had in placing Gamble in custody had to do with the fact she was wearing an inflatable penis costume, “making it difficult for her to turn over and otherwise allow herself to be handcuffed.”
“No injuries to the officers were reported,” the court filing states. “No charges of assault were lodged. Video, which has been viewed across the country, shows three officers piling on Ms. Gamble. If she resisted, which she did not, she had a right to do so and used only reasonable force. The idea that a 61-year-old grandmother confined in an inflatable penis costume would be capable of any form of resistance defies belief. She could barely see or more. The clip of the arrest makes that clear.”
