The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion addressing multiple appeals in *Kary Jarvis v. City of Daytona Beach*, a civil rights case involving Daytona Beach police officers and allegations arising from a traffic stop. The ruling, filed Feb. 6, 2026, addressed both direct appeals and cross-appeals stemming from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The case centers on actions taken by Daytona Beach police officers Marville Tucker and James Mackenzie during a traffic stop of plaintiff Kary Jarvis's vehicle. According to the allegations outlined in the appeals court opinion, the officers conducted the traffic stop while dispatched pursuant to an anonymous tip. The officers completed the traffic stop and delivered Jarvis a written warning before requesting consent to search his vehicle.
The procedural history reveals a complex litigation involving multiple parties and claims. Jarvis filed suit against the City of Daytona Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, as well as individual officers Tucker and Mackenzie in both their official and individual capacities. This dual-capacity naming suggests the case involves both municipal liability claims under Section 1983 and individual civil rights violations.
The appeals court addressed several key issues arising from the district court's handling of summary judgment motions. Tucker and Mackenzie appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on several claims, indicating they sought dismissal of some or all claims against them. Simultaneously, Jarvis filed a cross-appeal challenging the district court's denial of his own motion for summary judgment, suggesting he sought to establish liability as a matter of law on certain claims.
The Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Kidd, Anderson, and Wilson, noted in their per curiam opinion that they would "address each issue in turn" and write "only for the parties who are already familiar with the facts." This language indicates the court provided a focused analysis for the specific legal issues on appeal rather than a comprehensive factual recitation.
The timing of the traffic stop and subsequent events appears central to the case. The officers' decision to request consent to search Jarvis's vehicle after completing the traffic stop and issuing a written warning raises important Fourth Amendment questions about the scope and duration of traffic stops. Courts have established that traffic stops must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the initial stop, and officers generally cannot extend stops beyond their original purpose without reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity.
The involvement of an anonymous tip as the basis for the initial dispatch adds another layer of constitutional analysis. Courts have developed specific standards for evaluating the reliability of anonymous tips and whether they provide sufficient justification for police action. The quality and specificity of such tips often determines whether resulting police conduct violates Fourth Amendment protections.
The case's designation as "Not for Publication" indicates the Eleventh Circuit viewed this as a routine application of established legal principles rather than a precedent-setting decision. Published opinions typically address novel legal questions or provide important guidance on unsettled areas of law. Unpublished opinions like this one resolve specific factual disputes within existing legal frameworks.
The municipal corporation's inclusion as a defendant suggests potential claims under *Monell v. Department of Social Services*, which established standards for municipal liability in Section 1983 cases. To succeed against a municipality, plaintiffs must typically demonstrate that constitutional violations resulted from official policy, custom, or practice rather than isolated officer misconduct.
The individual capacity claims against the officers likely involve questions of qualified immunity, a doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The officers' appeal of the denied summary judgment motion suggests they argued their conduct did not violate clearly established law.
The cross-appeal by Jarvis indicates he sought summary judgment on at least some claims, possibly arguing the officers' conduct was so clearly unconstitutional that liability should be established as a matter of law. Such motions succeed only when the facts are undisputed and the law clearly favors the moving party.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between law enforcement practices and constitutional protections, particularly in traffic stop contexts. The outcome will likely depend on specific factual findings about the officers' conduct, the reliability of the anonymous tip, and whether the post-stop search request exceeded constitutional boundaries.
The Eleventh Circuit's handling of this case demonstrates the court's continued role in defining the boundaries of acceptable police conduct in routine traffic enforcement situations. The multiple appeals and cross-appeals suggest significant disagreement among the parties about both the facts and applicable legal standards.