Unpublished Disposition, 922 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991)

No. 89-55473.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before: ALARCON and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and MARSH,^*  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*

Richard Burriss appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* Burriss contends that social worker Teri Clark violated his fourth amendment rights by misrepresenting the purpose of her investigation to gain entry into his home. He alleges that Clark falsely represented she was investigating a complaint that he sexually abused his own children when she really was investigating a complaint that he molested his neighbors' children.

A suspect's consent will not justify an entry based upon deception when the suspect is informed that the person seeking entry is a government agent but is not informed of the purpose for which the agent seeks entry. United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Nevertheless, by telling Burriss that she was investigating him for child molestation, Clark did not misrepresent "the scope, nature or purpose of a government investigation"; the difference between stating that he was under investigation for molesting his own children and stating that he was under investigation for molesting his neighbors' children is immaterial. See id.

II

Burriss contends that deputy sheriff Barbara Fryer violated his fourth amendment rights when she submitted a warrant affidavit containing material misrepresentations, executed an overbroad search warrant, and conducted an overbroad search. Burriss' allegations fail to overcome the presumption that the affidavit is valid because he has not made a preliminary showing that the alleged misrepresentations were intentional or reckless falsehoods. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). Moreover, the warrant was not overbroad because the items described allegedly had been used by Burriss in the molestations or were related to the molestations. See United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the items seized by Fryer, including the law enforcement uniforms, were related to the molestations reported by the victims, and thus the search did not exceed the scope of the warrant. See United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1985).

III

Because we hold that Clark and Fryer did not violate Burriss' constitutional rights and because Burriss fails to state any other facts showing the existence of a deficient municipal policy, we conclude that Burriss' vague and conclusory allegations fail to state a claim against supervisors Sherman Block and Robert Chaffee or the County of Los Angeles. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED.