What happened
On November 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided Kelly v. Jett, No. 24-10553, in a published opinion. The panel affirmed summary judgment for two officers, Deputy Cody Jett and Detective Jonathan Smith, in a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which Colburn Clifton Gooden Kelly alleged that they seized him without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Judge William Pryor wrote the opinion for a panel that also included Judges Grant and Luck. No judge wrote separately.
According to the opinion, a detective saw a man sell drugs to a confidential informant and leave in a red vehicle with a female passenger. Minutes later, a dispatcher relayed an anonymous tip that Heather McDonald, who had an outstanding warrant, would arrive at a local McDonald's in a red Hyundai driven by a black male, and that the two possessed heroin and were using the vehicle to deal drugs. Deputy Jett found a matching vehicle there, ordered Kelly and McDonald to sit on the curb, and later drew his firearm when Kelly put his hands in his pockets. Kelly was handcuffed, a canine sniff alerted to drugs, and officers obtained a warrant after Kelly admitted drugs were in the vehicle. Kelly later pleaded no contest to state charges and then filed this suit.
What the opinion says
The district court had granted summary judgment on the ground that Heck v. Humphrey (1994) barred the suit. The Eleventh Circuit declined to rest on that ground. It said the application of Heck to Fourth Amendment claims "raises potentially thorny issues that we need not address in the light of a more straightforward basis to affirm," and it decided the appeal on qualified immunity instead.
The court stated the test: "the plaintiff must . . . establish that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." Because it found no violation, it did not reach the second step.
On the first step, the court assumed without deciding that ordering Kelly to the curb was a seizure that required probable cause, while noting Terry v. Ohio (1968), under which officers need only reasonable suspicion for certain stops. It held that "the anonymous tip and Deputy Jett's observations together supplied probable cause to detain Kelly." The opinion matched the tip to what the deputy saw: the vehicle and location, the driver and McDonald, a man at the driver's window who fled as the deputy approached, and the verified warrant for McDonald, who turned when called by her first name. It concluded: "Deputy Jett's initial investigation verified enough of the tipster's report for Deputy Jett to have probable cause to suspect Kelly of criminal drug activity."
Citing Illinois v. Gates (1983), the court wrote that probable cause "requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity," and that an anonymous tip can supply it together with "independent investigative work . . . corroborati[ng] . . . the [tip's] predictions." It also cited Florida v. J. L. (2000) for the point that corroboration must show a tip's reliability "in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person."
As to Detective Smith, the court held that because probable cause existed when Kelly was first detained, it existed "at every point thereafter," so he also did not violate the Constitution. The judgment for both officers was affirmed.
Where it sits in the record
The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The opinion applies the Supreme Court's probable-cause decisions in Illinois v. Gates (1983) and District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018), which it quotes for the statement that probable cause "is not a high bar," and it notes Terry v. Ohio (1968) and Florida v. J. L. (2000) on stops based on reasonable suspicion and anonymous tips. On Heck v. Humphrey, the panel cited its own decision in Henley v. Payne (2019) for the point that a shared "nucleus of operative fact" between a conviction and a § 1983 claim is necessary, but not sufficient, for Heck to apply, and it left the remaining Heck questions undecided. The record's earlier entry on the Sixth Circuit's United States v. Cook (November 6, 2026) also concerns Fourth Amendment probable cause, in the setting of a warrant affidavit.
Sources
Record updates report what happened and take no side. Signed analysis is kept apart, in Positions. Published November 14, 2026.