Whigham, described by officers as 'a career criminal with a lengthy history of arrests and convictions for crimes relating to drugs and violence,' was arrested on March 11, 2021, at a Red Roof Inn where he was staying. Detective William Jensen had obtained a warrant for Whigham's arrest in connection with an armed robbery that occurred at the same motel. During the arrest, Officers Linda Morgan and Caleb Bumgarner deployed Bumgarner's police dog 'Jax' after Whigham refused to exit his room and allegedly resisted officers' commands.
Judge Schlesinger found that while the officers had a valid arrest warrant, genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that Whigham 'slammed the door shut' when officers identified themselves and 'pushed hard against the door, trying to keep officers from entering the room.' However, the judge emphasized that the constitutional analysis required examining 'the totality of the circumstances' rather than isolated moments.
In a particularly striking passage, the court observed that while officers characterized Whigham's actions as active resistance, 'the relevant question is what a reasonable officer could infer from the totality of the scene.' The judge noted that body-worn camera footage showed Whigham 'thrashing his legs towards Jax as if he was trying to kick the dog away from him' but found the duration and circumstances of the canine deployment raised factual questions for a jury.
The case stemmed from a February 17, 2021 armed robbery at the Red Roof Inn, where a suspect 'exposed a silver object tucked in his waistband and demanded keys to the register while threatening to shoot the clerk.' Jensen's investigation led to Whigham through a phone number reportedly belonging to the suspect. A desk clerk positively identified Whigham from a photo lineup, despite the suspect wearing 'a neck gaiter that covered his mouth and nose' during the robbery. Circuit Judge Jeb Branham issued the arrest warrant on March 10, 2021.
The officers argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, contending that Whigham's resistance justified the canine deployment and that they followed proper protocols. As Bumgarner stated in his deposition, he maintained the 'bite-and-hold' until Whigham was handcuffed because the suspect 'was unsearched, unsecured, and not yet handcuffed.' The officers noted that a subsequent search of the room revealed 'a loaded handgun in the water tank behind the toilet, which had the same silver appearance as the weapon described by the robbery victim.'
Judge Schlesinger also rejected the officers' arguments on several state law claims, finding that Florida's statutory immunity provisions did not bar all of Whigham's claims. The court dismissed Whigham's 'willful and wanton conduct' claims as not cognizable under Florida law, explaining that such allegations 'provide immunity limits rather than create an independent tort.' However, the judge allowed Whigham's battery claims to proceed, applying the same reasonableness standard used in federal excessive force analysis.
The ruling represents a setback for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, which had argued that the arrest was conducted 'pursuant to valid arrest and search warrants' and that all force used was justified given Whigham's criminal history and resistance. Despite the State Attorney's Office ultimately declining to prosecute Whigham for the robbery, DNA analysis confirmed that the recovered weapon 'tested positive for the presence of Whigham's DNA,' lending credibility to the officers' initial investigation.
The case now proceeds toward trial, where a jury will determine whether the officers' actions violated Whigham's constitutional rights and whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. This development reflects the ongoing national scrutiny of police canine deployments and the circumstances under which such force may be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.