therefore claims Perez’s initial traffic stop was in violation of clearly established law that, “except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). (See Resp. 5-6). As Perez correctly notes, a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss. See Huls v. Llabona, 437 Fed.Appx. 830, 832 n. 5 (11th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Fleming v. Dowdell, 434 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1148
holding that an argument not raised before the bankruptcy court will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendants motion to dismiss instead of in an amended complaint was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal