WPC/  HZ/1հy[ u@B[j6@bR$O4Vٔg 6ʬw@~2;ҫMEBUU YA/Rِ5:9`iE^}m::Z IxTv|t!+ǂcxξkj~$YpB|>a]䃸)@zw梅#X8 |vk>-nehoLb&!Ta -t3Ws˱"y<2L\6Uԓh<+rF'BlGisSrl}/}U /m neK&a|(Ż2;r_w>؆fcܧN-7F"de|iĒtr,OHvWB]pN!AC'mf+c `,\SYN u#YpRn/b#\ %! 0' UN 0D A z yKQ^ Uwae+4}NE m 0U 0 0 0 0y 02 0 0 09 0 0 0p 0# 0 0w! 0" 0" 0H# 0# 0$ 0e% 0&b& 0& 0k' 0 ( 0( 03) 1U)) 1u* 72*************************** 0**** B++ 0+ D3e, D-, 0K,, AS-c- 0). 0D. A/HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0  R$      2    _Tenn.CodeAnn.3917306(a)(1997)statesthat [a]personcommitsanoffenseif,withtheintenttoprevent  ordisruptalawfulmeeting,procession,orgathering,thepersonsubstantiallyobstructsorinterfereswiththemeeting, t procession,orgatheringbyphysicalactionorverbal_utterance._(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0    R$      1    _Accordingtothepastorandotherspresent,Mr.Cantrellalsocalledthepastor thedevilfromWarren_County_  andreferredtotwootherchurchmembersas the_devils_Ԁ_disciples._ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt  R$      3    _Wehaveallowedthisappealunderthecollateralorderdoctrine,eventhoughtheorderdenyingthemotionfor  summaryjudgmentwasnotafinalorderforthepurposesofTenn.R.App.P.3(a).Mitchellv.Forsyth,472U.S.511, t 52630,105S.Ct.2806,281517(1985);Fannv.Brailey,841S.W.2d833,835(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). CantrellPhillipi FannBraileyFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloeShadrickCoker BelkObionconclusoryCawoodMcCarleyAss'nMilomPenleySeaton HCAServs HousdispositiveCreightonBreuerMalley JabeSweattRaneyMcLaurinParkeSwannSundquistHollingsworthSneedBostickw]hilearticulableWaldonCrutcherZx+s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5y*^3|xU*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` - -(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   $359=AEIMQ1111111113#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)6i)(|G2$ !.8^dd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8^dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8^dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8^dd8     _TRY,3'LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  ^8XXdd8  @ J^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#^J`#Ԉ &   April1,1999Session L XX^ #^XXF#WILLIAMCANTRELLv.DeKALBCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,etal.XX^  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDeKalbCounty  J @@No.7350JohnJ.Maddux,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199800964_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust3,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thisappealinvolvestwodeputysheriffsresponsetoachurchscomplaintthatoneofitsmembers x  wasdisruptingachurchassembly.Afterthedeputysheriffssuggestedthatheleavethepremises, d thechurchmemberfiledacivilrightsactionintheCircuitCourtforDeKalbCountyallegingthat P thetwodeputieshadunlawfullydetainedhimandhadinterferedwithhisrighttopracticehis < religion.Thelawenforcementofficers,assertingqualifiedimmunity,movedforasummary (x judgment.Thetrialcourtdeniedtheirmotion.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredbecause d theundisputedfactsdemonstratethattheofficersareentitledtoqualifiedimmunitybecausethey P actedreasonablyanddidnotviolateanyofthechurchmembersclearlyestablishedstatutoryor < constitutionalrights.Accordingly,wevacatetheorderdenyingthesummaryjudgmentandremand ( thecasewithdirectionsthatitbedismissed.  #^XX#XX^ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated     #^X #XX.^WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S., t andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined. ` MichaelE.Evans,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,DeKalbCounty,Tennessee,Brent 8!  Russell,TrevorYoung,andKennethPack. $"t! RichardM.Brooks,Carthage,Tennessee,fortheappellee,WilliamCantrell. #L# 8  OPINION #^XXg # %$!% XX^ I.  '"#'     WilliamCantrellisamemberofthePhillipiChurchofChristinDeKalbCounty.Duringan )$) informalchurchmeetingonJuly10,1996,heresignedasanelectedlaySundayschoolteacher *%* apparentlyoveradoctrinaldisagreementwiththechurchspastor.Mr.Cantrellhadsecondthoughts +&+ abouthisresignation,and,duringtheregularSundayschoolassemblyonJuly14,1996,he n,', commandeeredthepodiumandannouncedthatheretractedhisresignation.Then,heproceededto Z-(- readseveralBibleversesintendedtocastaspersionsonthechurchspastorandseveralother  membersofthecongregation. #  1          WhileMr.Cantrellwasspeaking,MarkLance,thechurchspastor,requestedhiswifetoask t anotherchurchmembertotelephonetheSheriffofDeKalbCountytoreportthatMr.Cantrellwas ` disturbingtheirassembly.ThiscallwasdispatchedtoDeputyTrevorYoungwhoimmediately L  contactedSheriffKennethPackforadvice.SheriffPackinstructedDeputyYoungtoinvestigatethe 8  complaintbecausestatelawprohibitedthedisruptionofapublicmeeting. #  2      ׀ $ t   DeputyYoungandDeputyBrentRussellthenrespondedtothecomplaint.Thepastorand  L  twomembersofthecongregationmetthedeputiesinthechurchparkinglot.Theycomplainedthat  8  Mr.Cantrellwasdisruptingtheirassemblyandrequestedthedeputiestoremovehimfromthe $  church.DeputyYounginformedthemthathecouldonlyaskMr.Cantrelltoleavebecausethe   officershadnotpersonallywitnessedthedisruptionandbecausenowarranthadbeenissuedforMr.   Cantrellsarrest.     ThetwodeputiesthenenteredthechurchandfoundMr.Cantrellsittingquietlyintherear p ofthechurch.Theytoldhimthattheyhadreceivedacomplaintthathewasdisruptingtheassembly \ andcurtlysuggestedthatheleavethebuildingsothattheycouldtalkwithhimoutside.Mr.Cantrell H compliedandleftthechurch.Onceoutsideintheparkinglot,Mr.Cantrellaskedthedeputiesifhe 4 wasunderarrest.Thedeputiesrespondedthathewasnotunderarrestandsuggestedthatheleave  p thepremisesandreturnanotherdaytoresolvehisdifferencewiththepastor.Mr.Cantrelleventually  \ leftafterthedeputiesdeclinedtoarresthim. H   OnJuly11,1997,Mr.CantrellfiledacivilrightsactionintheCircuitCourtforDeKalb   CountyagainstDeKalbCounty,SheriffPack,andDeputiesYoungandRussell.Hesought$10,000   incompensatorydamagesand$100,000inpunitivedamages.Thedefendantsfiledajointanswer  denyingthattheyhadviolatedanyofMr.Cantrellsrightsundercoloroflaw.Later,followingthe  depositionsofMr.Cantrellandthetwodeputies,thedefendantsmovedforasummaryjudgment  basedonthelawenforcementofficersqualifiedimmunityforactsundertakeningoodfaithwithin l thescopeoftheirduty.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionforsummaryjudgment,andthecountyand X  thelawenforcementofficersappealed. , #  3       D!  0"  @) II.   @hh TheStandardofReview     Thestandardsforreviewingsummaryjudgmentsonappealarewellsettled.Summary t judgmentsareproperinvirtuallyanycivilcasethatcanberesolvedonthebasisoflegalissuesalone. ` Frugev.Doe,952S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1997);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993); L  Churchv.Perales,39S.W.3d149,156(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Theyarenot,however,appropriate 8  whengenuinedisputesregardingmaterialfactsexist.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thus,asummary $ t judgmentshouldbegrantedonlywhentheundisputedfacts,andtheinferencesreasonablydrawn  ` fromtheundisputedfacts,supportoneconclusion!thatthepartyseekingthesummaryjudgment  L  isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Webberv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.,___S.W.3d  8  ___,___,2001WL740770,at*2(Tenn.2001);Brownv.BirmanManagedCare,Inc.,42S.W.3d $  62,66(Tenn.2001);Goodloev.State,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001).   Ѐ  Thepartyseekingasummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuine   disputeofmaterialfactexistsandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Shadrickv.   Coker,963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998);Belkv.ObionCounty,7S.W.3d34,36(Tenn.Ct.App. p 1999).Inordertobeentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,themovingpartymusteither \ affirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenonmovingpartysclaimorestablishanaffirmative H defensethatconclusivelydefeatsthenonmovingpartysclaim.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215 4 n.5;Cherryv.Williams,36S.W.3d78,8283(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).  p   OncethemovingpartydemonstratesthatithassatisfiedTenn.R.Civ.P.56srequirements, H thenonmovingpartymustdemonstratehowtheserequirementshavenotbeensatisfied.Nelsonv. 4 Martin,958S.W.2d643,647(Tenn.1997).Mereconclusorygeneralizationswillnotsuffice.   Cawoodv.Davis,680S.W.2d795,79697(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Thenonmovingpartymust   convincethetrialcourtthattherearesufficientfactualdisputestowarrantatrial(1)bypointingto  evidenceeitheroverlookedorignoredbythemovingpartythatcreatesafactualdispute,(2)by  rehabilitatingevidencechallengedbythemovingparty,(3)byproducingadditionalevidencethat  createsamaterialfactualdispute,or(4)bysubmittinganaffidavitinaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ. l P.56.07requestingadditionaltimefordiscovery.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d X  585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215n.6.Anonmovingpartywhofailstocarry D! itsburdenfacessummarydismissalofthechallengedclaimbecause,asourcourtshaverepeatedly 0"  observed,the failureofproofconcerninganessentialelementofacauseofactionnecessarily #l! rendersallotherfactsimmaterial.Alexanderv.MemphisIndividualPracticeAssn,870S.W.2d $X" 278,280(Tenn.1993);Straussv.Wyatt,Tarrant,Combs,Gilbert&Milom,911S.W.2d727,729 $D # (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). %0!$   Summaryjudgmentsenjoynopresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal.Scottv.Ashland '#& HealthcareCtr.,Inc.,___S.W.3d___,___,2001WL760081,at*3(Tenn.2001);Penleyv.Honda (#' MotorCo.,31S.W.3d181,183(Tenn.2000).Accordingly,appellatecourtsmustmakeafresh )$( determinationthattherequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeensatisfied.Hunterv.Brown, |*%) 955S.W.2d49,5051(Tenn.1997);Masonv.Seaton,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).Wemust h+&* considertheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustresolveall  inferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.Doev.HCAHealthServs.,Inc.,46S.W.3d191,196  (Tenn.2001);MemphisHous.Auth.v.Thompson,38S.W.3d504,507(Tenn.2001).When  reviewingtheevidence,wemustdeterminefirstwhetherfactualdisputesexist.Ifafactualdispute t exists,wemustthendeterminewhetherthefactismaterialtotheclaimordefenseuponwhichthe ` summaryjudgmentispredicatedandwhetherthedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial.Byrd L  v.Hall,847S.W.2dat214;Rutherfordv.PolarTankTrailer,Inc.,978S.W.2d102,104(Tenn.Ct. 8  App.1998). $ t @^^( III.   L  @  TheQualifiedImmunityDefense   8    Thedispositiveissueforthisappealiswhetherthelawenforcementofficialshavepresented   undisputedfactsdemonstratingthattheyareentitledtoqualifiedimmunityasamatteroflaw.The   trialcourtconcludedthattheydidnot.Werespectfullydisagree.   @) A.  p   Thecourtsfashionedthedefenseofqualifiedimmunityforgovernmentalofficialsfacing H civilrightssuitstostrikeabalancebetweensocietysinterestinsafeguardingcitizensconstitutional 4 rightsandtheabilityofpublicofficialstoperformtheirduties.Andersonv.Creighton,483U.S.  p 635,639,107S.Ct.3034,3039(1987);Davisv.Scherer,468U.S.183,195,104S.Ct.3012,3019  \ (1984).Whilecivilactionsfordamagesmaybeacitizensonlyrecoursetovindicatehisorher H constitutionalrightswhenpublicofficialsabusetheirpower,Harlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.800, 4 814,102S.Ct.2727,2736(1982),harassinglitigationandthepossibleexposuretopersonalliability   willundulyinhibitpublicofficialsinthegoodfaithperformanceoftheirduties.Andersonv.   Creighton,483U.S.at638,107S.Ct.at3038;Harlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.at814,102S.Ct.at  2736.    Thedefenseofqualifiedimmunityisavailabletopublicofficialswhoseconductconforms l toastandardofobjectivelegalreasonableness.Andersonv.Creighton,483U.S.at639,107S.Ct. X  at3038;Harlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.at819,102S.Ct.at2739.Underthisstandard, D! governmentalofficialsperformingdiscretionaryfunctionswillbeshieldedfromliabilityforcivil 0"  damagesaslongastheirconductdoesnotviolatetheclearlyestablishedconstitutionalorstatutory #l! rightsofwhichareasonablepersonwouldhaveknown.Harlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.at818,102 $X" S.Ct.at2738;Paynev.Breuer,891S.W.2d200,202(Tenn.1994);Fannv.Brailey,841S.W.2d $D # at835.Inorderforastatutoryorconstitutionalrighttobe clearlyestablished,itscontoursmust %0!$ besoclearthatareasonableofficialwouldunderstandthatwhatheorsheisdoingviolatesthatright. &"% Andersonv.Creighton,483U.S.at640,107S.Ct.at3039.Inotherwords,theunlawfulnessofthe '#& actmustbeapparentinlightofthepreexistinglaw.Malleyv.Briggs,475U.S.335,34445,106 (#' S.Ct.1092,109798(1986);Davisv.Scherer,468U.S.at191,195,104S.Ct.at3017,3019. )$(   |*%)   Whenthequalifiedimmunitydefenseisraisedinthecontextofasummaryjudgmentmotion,   theappellatecourtsreviewordersdenyingthemotiondenovo.Rogersv.Jabe,43F.3d1082,1085  (6thCir.1995).Weturnourattentionfirsttowhethertheplaintiffhasstatedaclaimunder42  U.S.C.1983(1994)beforedeterminingwhetherqualifiedimmunityshouldattach.Wardv.Dyke, t 58F.3d271,273(6thCir.1995);Sweattv.Raney,___S.W.3d___,___,2000WL791820,at*4 ` (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Iftheplaintiffhasarticulatedaviolationofaclearlyestablishedright,we L  thenproceedtodeterminewhetherthedefendantsconductviolatedthatright.McLaurinv.Morton, 8  48F.3d944,947(6thCir.1995).Inorderforarighttobe clearlyestablished,thelawmustbe $ t clearwithregardtothedefendantsparticularactionsintheparticularcircumstancesofthecase.  ` Blackv.Parke,4F.3d442,445(6thCir.1993).  L  @) B.  $    Mr.Cantrellarguesthathehaseffectivelyarticulatedaclaimbasedontwoclearly   establishedrights!hisrighttopracticehisreligionandhisrighttobefreefromunwarranted   governmentalrestrictionsonhispersonalfreedom.Undoubtedly,boththestateandfederal   constitutionsrestraingovernmentsfrominappropriatelyinterferingwithMr.Cantrellspersonal p liberties.However,undertheparticularcircumstancesofthiscase,theundisputedfactsdonot \ provideabasisforconcludingthatareasonableofficershouldhaveunderstoodthattheactionsat H issueinthiscaseviolatedMr.Cantrellsclearlyestablishedrights. 4 @) 1.   \ @  Mr.CantrellsFreeExerciseRights  H   Mr.Cantrell,likeallpersons,possessescertainclearlyestablishedrightswithregardtothe   practiceofhisreligion.UnderboththeReligionClausesinU.S.Const.amend.IandTenn.Const.   art.I,3,hehasanabsoluterighttobelieveinanyreligiousprinciplesordogmahedesires.State  exrel.Swannv.Pack,527S.W.2d99,111(Tenn.1975);Wolfv.Sundquist,955S.W.2d626,630  (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Healsohastherighttoactinaccordancewithhisbeliefs.Thequestionin  thiscaseiswhetherMr.Cantrell,whenactinginaccordancewithhisreligiousbeliefs,hasaclearly l establishedrighttodisruptotherswhoareattemptingtoexercisetheirownreligiousrights.The X  answerisno. D!   Tennesseehaslongrecognizedandprotectedtherightofpersonstopracticetheirreligion #l! freefrominappropriateinterferenceordisruption.Personswhointentionallydisruptapublic $X" meetingorgathering,includingachurchservice,maybecriminallyprosecuted.Tenn.CodeAnn. $D # 3917306;Fordv.State,210Tenn.105,110,355S.W.2d102,10304(1962);Hollingsworthv. %0!$ State,37Tenn.(5Sneed)517,520(1858).Thisstatutedoesnotdistinguishdisruptiveconduct &"% motivatedbyreligiousbeliefsfromothersortsofdisruptiveconduct.Rileyv.DistrictofColumbia, '#& 283A.2d819,823(D.C.1971);Peoplev.Morrisey,614N.Y.S.2d686,692(N.Y.Crim.Ct.1994); (#' CorporationofPresidentofChurchofJesusChristofLatterDaySaintsv.Wallace,590P.2d343, )$( 345(Utah.1979)(construingandapplyingsimilarstatutes).Thus,whenthesheriffsdepartment |*%) receivedthecomplaintabouttheeventsunfoldingatthePhillipiChurchofChrist,alawenforcement h+&* officerinTennesseewouldhavereasonablyunderstoodthatthepossiblyillegalconducthad  occurredorwasoccurring.  @) 2.  ` @u u  Mr.CantrellsRightToBeFreeFromUnwarrantedDetention  L    Afterreceivingthisinformation,thedeputiesdrovetothechurchbecausetheyhadastatutory $ t responsibilitytosuppressbreachesofthepeaceandtoarrestpersonstheykneworhadreasonto  ` suspecthadbreachedthepeace.Tenn.CodeAnn.383102,108(1997).Theyweremetatthe  L  churchbythepastorandtwomembersofthechurchwhotoldthemunequivocallythatMr.Cantrell  8  wasdisruptinganongoingassembly.Armedwiththisinformation,thedeputiesenteredthechurch $  totalkwithMr.Cantrell.     Noteveryencounterbetweenalawenforcementofficerandacitizenamountstoaseizure   oftheperson.Suchaseizureoccursonlywhentheofficer,eitherbymeansofphysicalforceorshow   ofauthority,hasinsomewayrestrainedapersonsliberty.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,424 p (Tenn.2000).Thetestfordeterminingwhetheraseizureoccurrediswhether,takingintoaccount \ allthecircumstancessurroundingtheencounter,theofficersconductwouldhavecommunicated H toareasonablepersonthatheorshewasnotatlibertytoignorethepolicepresenceandgoabouthis 4 orherbusiness.Floridav.Bostick,501U.S.429,437,111S.Ct.2382,2387(1991).However,an  p encounterwithalawenforcementofficerwillnotamounttoaseizuresimplybecausetheperson  \ feelsaninherentsocialpressuretocooperate.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthat [w]hile H mostcitizenswillrespondtoapolicerequest,thefactthatpeopledoso,anddosowithoutbeingtold 4 theyarefreenottorespond,hardlyeliminatestheconsensualnatureoftheresponse.Statev.   Daniel,12S.W.3dat425(citingINSv.Delgado,466U.S.210,216,104S.Ct.1758,1762(1984)).     Mr.Cantrellinsiststhathebelievedthathewasnotatlibertytoignorethedeputiesrequest  toleavethechurchtotalkwiththemintheparkinglot.Accordingly,wewillassumethathis  encounterwiththedeputiesonJuly14,1996,amountedtoabrief,investigatorydetentionthat l implicatesrightsprotectedbyU.S.Const.amendIVandTenn.Const.art.I,7.However,the X  inquirycannotendhere.Thelawpermitsabrief,investigatorydetentionwhenthelawenforcement D! officershaveareasonable,articulablesuspicionthatapersonhasengagedin,orispreparingto 0"  engagein,criminalbehavior.UnitedStatesv.Waldon,206F.3d597,604(6thCir.2000);Statev. #l! Crutcher,989S.W.2d295,300(Tenn.1999). $X"   ShortlybeforeDeputiesYoungandRussellenteredthechurchtotalkwithMr.Cantrell,they %0!$ hadbeentoldbythechurchspastorandtwootherchurchmembersthatMr.Cantrellhaddisrupted &"% thechurchassembly.ThisinformationwassufficienttogivethemareasonablesuspicionthatMr. '#& Cantrellhadcommitted,andmightagaincommit,acriminalact!disruptingthechurchassembly. (#' Accordingly,thedeputiespossessedsufficientinformationtowarrantrequestingMr.Cantrelltotalk )$( withtheminthechurchparkinglotandtosuggestthathereturnonanotheroccasiontoaddresshis |*%) disagreementswiththepastor.Basedontheundisputedfacts,thedeputiesareentitledtoqualified h+&* immunitybecausetheyactedreasonablyanddidnotviolateanyofMr.Cantrellsclearlyestablished  rightswhentheyaskedhimtotalkwiththemintheparkinglotofthechurchandthensuggestedthat  hepursuehisdisagreementswiththepastoronanotherday.  @dd) IV.  `   Wevacatetheorderdenyingthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandremandthe 8  casewithinstructionstograntthesummaryjudgmentandenteranorderdismissingallclaims $ t againstDeKalbCounty,SheriffPack,andDeputiesYoungandRussell.Wetaxthecostsofthis  ` appealtoWilliamCantrellforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.  L     `     h     _____________________________      `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE