The Dukes of Hazzard and Braveheart in the Eleventh Circuit

On Wednesday, Judge Pryor handed down a Fourth Amendment decision in Myers v. Bowman that begins:

This appeal presents the question whether three officials in a rural county of Georgia are entitled to a summary judgment against a complaint that they violated the civil rights of a father and son who had been involved in an aborted exchange of property between a previously engaged couple. When Dustin Myers and Kelley Bowman ended their engagement to be married, Dustin attempted to retrieve the diamond ring he had given Kelley and other personal property, but that attempt prompted allegations that Dustin had stolen Kelley’s dog, followed by a police chase on rural roadways and a brief arrest of Dustin and his father, Rodney Myers. The end of the police chase, which resembles a scene from a rerun of the 1980s television show, The Dukes of Hazzard, fittingly was captured on a video camera on the dashboard of a police car.

The fact section opens:

There would be no wedding bells, no wedding cake, and no tuxedo and white dress for Dustin Myers and Kelley Bowman. The couple was engaged to be married, but before the time came to say “I Do,” Kelley found herself a new Romeo. She broke Dustin’s heart, and she tried to hurt his finances too by hosting two yard sales at which she sold some of his property. Kelley’s mother called Dustin late in the evening of August 12, 2009, to tell him that his fiancée had been unfaithful and to provide the helpful advice that he should “come get [his] stuff before everything was gone.”

And later we get this:

As if in homage to Stephen the Irishman, the character in Braveheart who declared his native Ireland to be “My Island!” Murry said to his former future son-in-law, “Once again, this is my county. I don’t want to ever see you back up here. . . .I’m fixing to let you go. You get your shit, and I better not fucking catch you back in my county.”

Thanks to FourthAmendment.com for the link.