Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't, No. 12-15654 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePolice, on the lookout for two white males, mistook a teenaged boy and his friends, all Hispanic, for intruders in the boy's own home. The police pointed guns at the boys, entered the home without a warrant, handcuffed and detained the boys and others, and shot and killed the family dog. The boy's family, the Sandovals, filed suit alleging violations of their constitutional rights and related rights under state law. On appeal, the Sandovals challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the police department and the officers on all claims. The court concluded that Officer Dunn's warrantless entry into the home was not supported by probable cause and thus violated plaintiffs' rights; because it was clearly established Federal law that the warrantless search of a dwelling must be supported by probable cause and the existence of exigent circumstances or an emergency aid exception, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity; the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers on plaintiffs' excessive force claims where the district court unfairly tipped the reasonableness inquiry in the officers' favor, rather than in the Sandovals' favor; the court rejected plaintiffs' familial association claim where the boy's father was separated from his son briefly and where the shooting of the family dog did not fall within the ambit of deprivation of familial relationship; the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the officers on the equal protection claim and municipal liability claim; the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers on the state law intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and false imprisonment claims as they relate to Jesus Sandoval, and the handcuffing and detention of the boys once the officers knew no crime had been committed; and the court affirmed the dismissal of the remaining state law claims. The court reversed the district court's judgment as to the Fourth Amendment claims for excessive force and unlawful entry.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada state law alleging that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officers violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when they entered, without a warrant, plaintiffs’ home looking for intruders, handcuffed and detained the teenage boys inside, and shot and killed the family dog. Reversing the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the police officers, the panel held that taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, officers did not have probable cause to enter and search the residence for either evidence of burglary or the lesser offense of prowling. The panel held that police officer Michael Dunn was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established law as of 2009, that the warrantless search of a dwelling must be supported by either the exigency or the emergency aid exception. The panel further held that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim and were not entitled to Nevada statutory immunity on certain state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery and false imprisonment. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the police officers on plaintiffs’ claim for deprivation of familial association, the panel held that a separation between a father and his son for forty minutes did not shock the conscience and that the shooting of the family dog did not fall within the ambit of deprivation of a familial relationship. The panel further determined that there was no evidence of an equal protection violation and that plaintiffs’ bare-bones allegations of municipal liability were insufficient.
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.