DeShawn Gervin was wrongfully arrested and detained for 104 days after Georgia officers charged him with violating a probation condition that did not exist, raising serious Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment concerns.
At a Glance
- Gervin’s only probation condition was that he not return to Georgia’s judicial circuit, a rule he obeyed
- Despite this, probation officers falsely claimed he “failed to report” and “absconded,” triggering his arrest
- North Carolina police arrested and extradited Gervin under a Georgia warrant based on the false claims
- The Eleventh Circuit held that recklessly misrepresenting probation violations violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
- The ruling affirmed that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity in such reckless acts
Case Background and Legal Context
In the case of Gervin v. Florence, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether DeShawn Gervin’s extended detention was lawful. Gervin had been instructed not to return to the judicial circuit where he was sentenced, a condition he did not violate after relocating to North Carolina.
Following unrelated criminal charges in North Carolina, Georgia probation officers accused Gervin of “failing to report” and “absconding”—terms not listed in his actual probation order. Based on those claims, an arrest warrant was issued, leading to Gervin’s extradition and imprisonment for more than three months before Georgia officials acknowledged he had violated no terms of his probation.
Constitutional Violations and Accountability
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Gervin’s detention was unconstitutional because the arrest warrant was obtained with reckless disregard for the truth. In its opinion, the court stated that “[every] reasonable officer would know that lying or omitting key facts to justify an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.”
As detailed in coverage by Reason, the court emphasized that the officers’ conduct also infringed Gervin’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him due process. The judges concluded that the probation officers involved were not protected by qualified immunity because the constitutional violations were both obvious and avoidable.
Broader Implications for Probation Enforcement
This case may have wide-reaching implications for probation policy across the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Legal analysts say the ruling reinforces the principle that criminal justice officials must verify factual grounds before initiating punitive action.
The decision affirms that lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are viable in situations where law enforcement or probation officers recklessly detain individuals without lawful basis. Civil rights advocates have hailed the judgment as a check against unchecked prosecutorial and supervisory power.
For individuals on probation, Gervin’s case underscores the importance of transparency and procedural fairness—a reminder that even technical violations must rest on accurate legal conditions, not assumption or conjecture.
