JAMES KLEISER, ET AL V. BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, ET AL, No. 21-36029 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Appellants J.K. and Mr. Electric (jointly “Mr. Electric”) challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action in favor of Defendants-Appellees, and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (together “the Department”). Two Mr. Electric employees provided the Department with copious amounts of Mr. Electric’s data, particularly printouts of cell site location information that provided GPS coordinates for company vehicles which showed all movement of electricians in the field. The Department used the data to write citations and assess administrative fines against Mr. Electric for violations of Washington’s electrical code stemming from improper supervision of journeymen electricians in Clark County.
Appellants argued that Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), and Wilson v. United States, 13 F.4th 961 (9th Cir. 2021), foreclosed the Department’s use of Appellants’ location information because, when read together, the cases extinguished the applicability of the private search exception to the Fourth Amendment to location information.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Appellees. The panel noted that although Carpenter held that the third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information, the private search exception is an altogether separate exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment and state law violations when the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries wrote citations and assessed administrative fines against plaintiffs based on information obtained, without a warrant, from plaintiffs’ disgruntled employees which provided cell site location information for plaintiffs’ company vehicles. Plaintiffs argued that Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), and Wilson v. United States, 13 F.4th 961 (9th Cir. 2021), foreclosed the Department’s use of plaintiffs’ location information because, when read together, the cases extinguished the applicability of the private search exception to the Fourth Amendment to location information. The panel noted that although Carpenter held that the third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information, the private search exception is an altogether separate exception to the KLEISER V. CHAVEZ 3 Fourth Amendment. The panel joined other sister circuits and held that the dicta from Wilson coupled with the holding in Carpenter did not foreclose the availability of the private search exception when location information is involved. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s ruling finding Carpenter inapplicable in private search exception cases. Plaintiffs’ additional argument that the Department failed to show that the requirements for the private search exception were established was waived because it was not raised before the district court. The panel addressed plaintiffs’ remaining contentions in a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.