During a traffic stop, Miami-Dade Detective Carl Rousseau shot Roberto Valderrama in the groin. Officers then arrested Valderrama for drug-paraphernalia possession, delayed medical assistance, reported the gunshot wound as a laceration, and searched the vehicle. The charges were later dropped. Valderrama sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, along with state-law claims. The district court denied qualified immunity on several claims, and the officers appealed. The Eleventh Circuit held there was probable cause because Smith testified she saw Valderrama throw a crack pipe; contrary evidence did not create a genuine dispute because Valderrama’s own account did not make Smith’s observation impossible. It also held that Rousseau and Smith were not entitled to qualified immunity on the deliberate-indifference claim: a jury could find that they knowingly delayed care for a life-threatening gunshot wound, misreported its severity, and acted with more than gross negligence, and the right was clearly established. Gonzalez was entitled to qualified immunity because he arrived later and the record did not show that he knew of the earlier delay or misreporting. The court reversed the Fourth Amendment and false-arrest rulings, affirmed the deliberate-indifference ruling as to Rousseau and Smith, reversed it as to Gonzalez, dismissed the state conspiracy and concert-of-action appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded. Judge Cox concurred in part and dissented from the deliberate-indifference holding as to Rousseau and Smith.