Henry v. Iannone, No. 23-14197-CIV-CANNON (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Nelson Henry v. Joseph Iannone and James Deacetis
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Majority
Aileen M. Cannon (J.) (unanimous Court)
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 216789Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. Florida.NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff,v.JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMESDEACETIS, Defendants.CASE NO. 23-14197-CIV-CANNON/McCabe|01/28/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsNelson Henry, Okeechobee, FL, Pro Se.James Orrin Williams Jr., Williams Leininger & Cosby, NorthPalm Beach, FL, for Defendants.AILEEN M. CANNON, UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGEORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'SREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 341]*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon MagistrateJudge Ryon M. McCabe's Report and Recommendation(“Report”) on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment(the “Motion”) [ECF No. 341 (Report); ECF No. 304(Motion)]. The Report recommends summary judgment infavor of Defendants on all of Plaintiff's remaining claims inthe Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) [ECF No. 39]—namely, Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for maliciousprosecution and false arrest, and common law claims formalicious prosecution, false arrest, and intentional inflictionof emotional distress [ECF No. 341]. Plaintiff, proceeding prose, filed timely Objections to the Report [ECF No. 345].1The Court has reviewed the Report [ECF No. 341], Plaintiff'sObjections [ECF No. 345], Defendants’ Motion and allrelated filings [ECF Nos. 304–306, 331–333, 336], and thefull summary judgment record.2 For the reasons set forthbelow, the Report [ECF No. 341] is ACCEPTED, and theMotion [ECF No. 304] is GRANTED.RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORYThis case is about a DUI arrest conducted by OfficersIannone and Deacetis of the City of Port Saint Lucie whenthey encountered Plaintiff asleep in his parked car on theside of a highway on January 17, 2021 [ECF No. 39].Following his arrest, Plaintiff was detained for twelve monthsawaiting trial, but state prosecutors ultimately dismissed theDUI case against Plaintiff following a mistrial (due to jurorunavailability and a later determination of double jeopardypreventing a retrial) [ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 29, 37–38, 75, 93–97]. InJuly 2023, Plaintiff brought this suit against Officers Iannoneand Deacetis, the City of Port St. Lucie, and the City Manageralleging various claims stemming from that arrest [ECF No.1].*2 At issue now for summary judgment, following twoamendments of Plaintiff's Complaint and an earlier orderdismissing Plaintiff's claims against the City and CityManager [ECF No. 58], are the following claims againstOfficers Iannone and Deacetis: (1) malicious prosecutionunder the Fourth Amendment and state common law (CountsI and II); (2) false arrest under the Fourth Amendment andstate common law (Counts I and III); and (3) intentionalinfliction of emotional distress (Count V) [ECF No. 39].3The Report recommends judgment in favor of Defendants onthose claims, concluding that Defendants had at least arguableprobable cause to arrest Plaintiff for DUI and therefore areentitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's federal claims,on the one hand, and to state sovereign immunity underFla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) for any alleged tortious conductperformed within the scope of their employment, on the other[ECF No. 341]. Pertinent to this conclusion is the videoevidence of Plaintiff's field sobriety tests performed on scene,which blatantly contradicts Plaintiff's account of the same andplainly shows that Plaintiff (1) failed to follow instructionsduring the first phase of the field sobriety test; (2) swayed andstumbled numerous times during the second and third phasesof the field sobriety test; and (3) stated that he had “[j]ustone” when asked how much he had to drink [ECF No. 304-6at 0:57–1:05, 1:31, 3:20– 6:06, 6:09–6:17; ECF No. 39 33;ECF No. 305 19; ECF No. 332 1].4Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Report [ECFNo. 345]. In those Objections, Plaintiff claims that theReport improperly resolves factual disputes at the summaryjudgment stage; misapplies precedent in determining thatthe video of the police encounter “blatantly contradicts”
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Plaintiff's account of the interaction; erroneously concludesthat officers had arguable probable cause to arrest him;improperly dismisses Plaintiff's purported Monell claim;misapplies the “bad faith” exception to Florida's sovereignimmunity statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a); and otherwisefails to address Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotionaldistress claim [ECF No. 345]. The Report is ripe foradjudication [ECF Nos. 341, 345].RELEVANT FACTSAs necessary context to resolve Plaintiff's Objections to theReport, the Court sets forth the following facts as drawn fromundisputed portions of the summary judgment record.5 Asalways, summary judgment is appropriate only if “the movantshows that there is no genuine issue as to any material factand the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(a). Wherever there is a factual dispute,the Court construes the record in the light most favorable toPlaintiff. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014). However,notwithstanding Plaintiff's version of events, when a videoblatantly contradicts one version of the facts “so that noreasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adoptthat version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motionfor summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380(2007).At approximately 3 a.m. on January 17, 2021, Officer Iannonepulled behind Plaintiff's car, which was stopped on the side ofVeterans Memorial Parkway in Port St. Lucie [ECF No. 306¶¶ 4–5]. Officer Iannone approached the driver's side windowon foot and saw Plaintiff asleep in the driver's seat [ECF No.305 ¶¶ 8, 10; ECF No. 332 ¶¶ 8, 10]. Officer Deacetis arrivedshortly thereafter [ECF No. 306 8]. Officer Iannone thenasked Plaintiff to get out of the vehicle to participate in aroadside field sobriety test, to which Plaintiff agreed [ECFNo. 305 17; ECF No. 332 17]. The field test is captured onpolice video, filed conventionally by Defendants [ECF No.316; ECF No. 304-6].*3 As depicted on the video, Officer Iannone first moves apen back and forth in front of Plaintiff's face and instructs himto track the pen using only his eyes [ECF No. 305 ¶¶ 18, 20,21; ECF No. 332 ¶¶ 18, 20]. Plaintiff repeatedly fails to followOfficer Iannone's instructions and tracks the pen by turninghis entire head rather than using only his eyes [ECF No. 304-6at 0:57- 1:05, 1:31]. Next, Officer Iannone instructs Plaintiffto take nine steps in a straight line in a heel-to-toe mannerwith his arms at his sides while counting the steps out loud[ECF No. 305 ¶¶ 18, 24; ECF No. 332 ¶¶ 18, 24]. The videoshows that Plaintiff repeatedly stumbles, sways, and extendshis arms for balance as he performs the exercise [ECF No.304-6 at 3:20-4:39]. Third, Officer Iannone instructs Plaintiffto stand on one leg and to hold the other leg six inches offthe ground with his toes pointed out [ECF No. 305 ¶¶ 18, 32;ECF No. 332 ¶¶ 18, 32, 33]. The video also shows Plaintiffrepeatedly swaying and touching his raised foot to the groundto maintain his balance [ECF No. 304-6 at 4:43-6:06]. At theconclusion of the test, Officer Iannone asks Plaintiff, “Howmuch have you had to drink my man?” [ECF No. 304-6 at6:09-6:17]. Plaintiff responds, “Just one” [ECF No. 304-6 at6:09-6:17]. Thereafter, Officers Iannone and Deacetis placedPlaintiff under arrest for DUI [ECF No. 305 43; ECF No.332 43]. Plaintiff remained detained on the DUI chargepending trial until February 2022 [ECF No. 304-9]; the casewas dismissed after a mistrial in June 2022 [ECF No. 304-11].LEGAL STANDARDS ON REFERRALTo challenge the recommendations of a magistrate judge,a party must file specific written objections identifying theportions of the proposed findings and recommendation towhich objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heathv. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem,Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district courtreviews de novo those portions to which objection is madeand may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, thefindings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).DISCUSSIONUpon de novo review of the Report and the full summaryjudgment record, the Court agrees with the well-reasonedReport and rejects Plaintiff's numerous objections, addressedin turn below in the order in which they are presented.A. The Report does not improperly resolve factual orcredibility disputes at the summary judgment stage.In Plaintiff's first Objection, Plaintiff challenges the Reportfor purportedly resolving factual disputes and credibilityquestions at the summary judgment stage, in violation ofFed. R. Civ. P. 56 and related Eleventh Circuit caselaw [ECFNo. 345 pp. 3–4 (“The R&R repeatedly accepts the officers’
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3version of events, including their alleged observationsabout Plaintiff's ‘bloodshot eyes,’ ‘odor of alcohol,’ ‘slurredspeech,’ ‘stumbling,’ and purported ‘refusal’ to submit tochemical testing.”)]. This Objection lacks merit. As theface of the Report makes clear, Magistrate Judge McCabeexplicitly declined to weigh disputed evidence in reachinghis conclusion on arguable probable cause [ECF No. 341p. 9 (“The Court declines to rely upon this additionalevidence, as Plaintiff disputes much of it, including thecredibility of the officers’ personal observations.”)]. Indeed,Magistrate Judge McCabe based his probable cause analysison the undisputed facts that (1) the officers found Plaintiffasleep at the wheel of his vehicle, (2) he admitted tohaving one drink, and (3) he performed poorly on thefield sobriety exercises as clearly displayed in the policefootage [ECF No. 341 p. 14]. And, with regard to thefield sobriety exercises, Magistrate Judge McCabe focusedon uncontroverted video evidence, ultimately concluding(based on that uncontroverted evidence) that Defendants hadarguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff under Florida'sdriving under the influence statute [ECF No. 341 pp. 6–9];see Fla. Stat. § 316.193. Following de novo review of thevideo, that determination is entirely correct and faithful to thesummary judgment standard. Plaintiff's first objection fails.B. The Report properly applies the Supreme Court'sinstruction in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), to adoptthe version of the facts plainly depicted in the video of thefield sobriety test over Plaintiff's contradicted version.Plaintiff next criticizes the Report for reportedly misapplyingthe Supreme Court's decision in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372(2007), which holds that district courts should not adopt aparty's version of events on summary judgment when a videoblatantly contradicts that party's account. 550 U.S. 372, 380(2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, oneof which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that noreasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adoptthat version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motionfor summary judgment.”). In Plaintiff's view, the video doesnot show any evidence of intoxication and therefore does not“blatantly contradict” his factual account of what happened[ECF No. 345 p. 5 (claiming that the video does not showintoxication or impairment, slurred speech, bloodshot orwatery eyes, etc.)]. This version of events regarding Plaintiff'sintoxication is plainly contradicted by the video evidence ofthe field sobriety test, which conclusively shows Plaintiffswaying and stumbling throughout the encounter as wellas his inability to follow instructions throughout the testing[ECF No. 304-6 at 0:57-1:05, 1:31, 3:20-6:06]. Additionally,Plaintiff's arguments about the visual adequacy of the videoitself (as it pertains to whether it completely shows his headand/or the location of his car) do not disturb the correctconclusion reached in the Report, which is that Defendantshad ample basis to arrest Plaintiff based on any numberof behavioral red flags undisputedly shown in the video,including his swaying, stumbling, and inability to followinstructions during the sobriety testing [ECF No. 341 p. 10(“The Court has reviewed the video footage numerous times.The footage plainly and unambiguously shows that Plaintifffailed to follow instructions during the first phase of the testand that he swayed and staggered during the second and thirdphases of the test.” (citing ECF No. 304-6 at 0:57-1:05, 1:31,3:20-6:06))].6Plaintiff's second Objection is overruled.C. The Report correctly determines that Defendantshad arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for DUInotwithstanding Plaintiff's allegations of false statementsin the arrest affidavit.*4 Plaintiff's third Objection to the Report is that MagistrateJudge McCabe supposedly erred in failing to recognize that“fabricated evidence or false statements defeat qualifiedimmunity” [ECF No. 345 p. 6]. Pointing to Paez v. Mulvey,915 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2019), Plaintiff argues that theReport treats the allegedly fabricated statements—such as theofficers’ claims regarding Plaintiff's physical presentment andthe location of his vehicle at the arrest—as “immaterial,”which “directly contradicts Paez” [ECF No. 345 p. 6 (citingPaez, 915 F.3d at 1287)]. This Objection also lacks merit.Paez directs courts, when confronted with assertions ofalleged misstatements or omissions in an officer's affidavit(and in the context of qualified immunity), to “examine themateriality of the information by inquiring whether probablecause would be negated if the offending statement [i]sremoved or the omitted information included.” 915 F.3dat 1287. The Report is fully consistent with that decision.Indeed, as indicated in the quoted portion below, the Reportexpressly declines to consider the alleged misstatements andreaches a conclusion of arguable probable cause withoutregard to such alleged misstatements:[E]ven after removal of the alleged misstatements[regarding direction of vehicle, refusal to submit to a breathtest, bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, fumbling withdocuments, and other persons’ presence during stop], theofficers’ Affidavits still demonstrate arguable probablecause for a DUI arrest based on the following facts: (1) the
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4officers found Plaintiff asleep at the wheel of his vehicle,(2) he performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises,and (3) he admitted to having one drink. (DE 304-1, DE304-3).)[ECF No. 341 pp. 13–14]. Accordingly, contrary to Plaintiff'ssuggestion, the Report is entirely faithful to the arguableprobable cause standard and to the procedure for assessingmisstatements as articulated in Paez [see ECF No. 245 p. 7].D. The Report correctly concludes that any attempt toassert an official-capacity claim against Defendants nowfails as a matter of law on the facts alleged.In Plaintiff's fourth Objection, Plaintiff claims the Reportimproperly dismisses a Monell claim which Plaintiff argueshe pled in the SAC and briefed on summary judgment [ECFNo. 345 pp. 7–8].7 The record shows otherwise. The SACnowhere mentions Monell liability, containing merely tworepeated references to a “history and/or custom for falsifyingReports” [ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 50, 91]. As the motion-to-dismissbriefing reveals, that is insufficient to give notice of a Monelltheory of liability, even granting Plaintiff's pro se status [seeECF No. 41 p. 17 n.4]. In fact, the Court dismissed all claimsagainst the City in July 2024 for failure to comply with apre-suit denial requirement in Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6) [ECFNo. 58]. It was only until June 2025, almost a year after theCourt's termination of the City as a party to this case, thatPlaintiff meaningfully began suggesting that he had pled aMonell claim against the City [see, e.g., ECF No. 240 p. 2].And even then, the Court again clarified that the City was nolonger a party to this action [ECF No. 241]. Regardless, tothe extent the SAC can even be said to have pleaded a Monellclaim against the City of Port St. Lucie or Defendants in theirofficial capacities, the fundamental point remains the same,as stated in the Report: the SAC clearly lacks any plausiblebasis to state a claim of Monell liability against the City basedon a purported policy of “falsifying Reports” [see ECF No.341 pp. 15–18]. Nothing in Plaintiff's Objections disturbs thecorrectness of that conclusion or otherwise permits Plaintiffto insist upon a Monell claim that he never pleaded properlyin this action. Plaintiff's Fourth Objection fails.E. The Report correctly determines that Defendants areentitled to sovereign immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a).*5 Plaintiff's fifth Objection to the Report is thatDefendants’ alleged fabrication of facts to justify probablecause for his arrest constitutes an exception to Florida'ssovereign immunity statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a). Recallthat § 768.28(9)(a) provides immunity to Defendants for anyalleged tortious conduct performed within the scope of theiremployment. Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a). Under an exceptionto that rule, however, if an officer “acted in bad faith orwith malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton andwillful disregard of human rights, safety, or property,” thensovereign immunity will not attach. Id. Plaintiff argues thatMagistrate Judge McCabe ignored this statutory exception,basing his Report entirely on the fact that Defendants “acted‘within the scope’ of employment” [ECF No. 345 p. 9].Yet again, Plaintiff misstates the Report. After concluding thatOfficers Iannone and Deacetis were acting within the scope oftheir employment, Magistrate Judge McCabe “further” findsthat “the undisputed facts show that the officers did not actin ‘bad faith’ or with ‘malicious purpose’ or in ‘a mannerexhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights,safety, or property’ for purposes of” Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) [ECF No. 341 pp. 14–15]. The Court agrees with thatdetermination; the officers had arguable probable cause toarrest Plaintiff for DUI, so no reasonable juror could concludethat the officers’ conduct exhibited bad faith, malice, orwanton and willful disregard for Plaintiff's rights within themeaning of Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) [ECF No. 341 pp. 14–15];Scott v. City of Miami, No. 21-CV-23995, 2023 WL 2621203,at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2023) (“[T]here is no evidencethat the officers’ actions were done with malice or bad faithbecause there was probable cause for the detention and arrest.Thus, Scott's claim against the City of Miami fails. Fla. Stat.§ 768.28(9)(a).”), aff'd, 139 F.4th 1267 (11th Cir. 2025). ThisObjection is due to be denied.F. The Report properly addresses and dismissesPlaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotionaldistress.Plaintiff's sixth Objection to the Report is that it fails toaddress his claim for intentional infliction of emotionaldistress in Count V [ECF No. 345 pp. 9–10]. Asexplained, however, Magistrate Judge McCabe concludes thatDefendants are entitled to sovereign immunity for state-lawtort claims under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) [ECF No. 341pp. 14–15]. There is no dispute that Plaintiff's intentionalinfliction of emotional distress claim is a state law tort claimcovered by Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a). Weiland v. Palm BeachCnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1330 (11th Cir. 2015)(“Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a)...bars claims for both intentionalinfliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution.”).Accordingly, Plaintiff's last objection is overruled.
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5CONCLUSIONAccordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED asfollows:1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 341] isACCEPTED.2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.304] is GRANTED.3. Final Judgment to issue by separate order. ORDERED inChambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 27th day of January2026.AILEEN M. CANNONUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEcc: Nelson Henry, Pro seOkeechobee Correctional InstitutionInmate Mail/Parcels3420 N.E. 168th StreetOkeechobee, Florida 34972All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 216789Footnotes1Plaintiff filed two identical versions of his Objections, one on December 8, 2025 [ECF No. 344] and one on December11, 2025 [ECF No. 345]. The Court cites the latter filing in this Order.2The summary judgment record includes: Defendant Iannone's Affidavits [ECF Nos. 304-1; 304- 5; ECF No. 333-1 pp. 12–14, 91–94, 117–118]; the maps of the scene of the arrest [ECF No. 304- 2; ECF No. 333-1 p. 95]; the field sobriety testingpaperwork [ECF No. 304-3; ECF No. 333-1 p. 127]; the citations issued to Plaintiff [ECF Nos. 304-4; 304-7]; the incidentinvestigation report [ECF No. 304-5; ECF No. 333-1 pp. 108–116], Plaintiff's prisoner intake information [ECF No. 304-8],the property inventories from Plaintiff's arrest [ECF Nos. 304-14; 304-15; ECF No. 333- 1 pp. 97–100, 119]; Plaintiff'saffidavits detailing the facts of the arrest [ECF No. 304-16; ECF No. 333-1 pp. 1–7], the state-court filings pertainingto Plaintiff's prosecution for his DUI offense [ECF Nos. 304-9; 304-10; 304-11; ECF No. 333-1 pp. 78–80, 86–89]; theOperating Procedures of the Port St. Lucie Police Department [ECF No. 333-1 pp. 20–28]; the various responses toPlaintiff's discovery requests [ECF No. 333-1 pp. 30–63, 101–107, 121–125, 129–133]; Plaintiff's booking photo [ECFNo. 333-1 p. 64]; the internet articles describing officer misconduct submitted by Plaintiff [ECF No. 333-1 pp. 65–71]; thecriminal docket from Plaintiff's state case [ECF No. 333-1 pp. 73–76]; the officers’ collective bargaining agreement withthe City of Port St. Lucie [ECF No. 333-1 pp. 81–84]; and the body cam footage from the arrest [ECF No. 304-6].3The Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint as a shotgun pleading [ECF Nos. 1, 5] and then permitted two additionalamendments: Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7] and then the operative SAC [ECF No. 39].4Although Plaintiff challenges the characterization of the video footage, he does not dispute the authenticity of the footageor claim that it has been altered in any way. See Baker v. City of Madison, Al., 67 F.4th 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2023).5Unless otherwise noted, these undisputed facts are drawn from the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts [ECF No. 306]or from facts in Defendant's Statement of Material Facts and supporting exhibits [ECF No. 305] that are neither disputednor rebutted by Plaintiff in his Response Statement of Material Facts and supporting exhibits [ECF Nos. 331–332]. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e).6Plaintiff attempts to support this objection by citing seemingly hallucinated quotations from cases such as Sims v.Metro. Dade Cnty., 972 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1992), and Shaw v. City of Selma, 884 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2018). Forexample, Plaintiff quotes from Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty., asserting that “where the video does not clearly contradict thenonmovant's story, the court must accept the nonmovant's version.” But Sims does not even cite or mention Scott v.Harris or its progeny; nor does it discuss any video evidence; nor even the concept of probable cause.
NELSON HENRY, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH IANNONE and JAMES..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.67A plaintiff bringing a Monell claim must show: (1) the violation of a constitutional right, (2) that a municipality had a customor policy of deliberate indifference to that right and (3) that the custom or policy caused the violation. Rogers v. Sheriff ofSanta Rosa Cnty., Fla., No. 21-13994, 2023 WL 2566087, at *6 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access