Demuth v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. 12-57197 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a Los Angeles County public defender, filed suit against the County and a deputy sheriff, alleging that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the deputy briefly arrested her pursuant to a judicial command that she appear in court. The district court concluded that the arrest violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, but that the deputy was protected by qualified immunity. The court concluded that the deputy could not reasonably have believed that he had one of the usual Fourth Amendment justifications for the arrest where he had no warrant; plaintiff was not suspected of a crime; he was not in hot pursuit or performing a community care-taking function, etc. The referee's order, by its clear terms, did not authorize the deputy to seize plaintiff; no reasonable officer could have understood the referee as ordering that plaintiff be forcibly brought into court; and an unreasonable mistake of fact does not provide the basis for qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s bench trial judgment in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a Los Angeles County public defender who alleged that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a deputy sheriff briefly arrested her pursuant to a judicial command that she appear in court. The panel held that the deputy sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity because he could not reasonably have believed that he had one of the usual Fourth Amendment justifications for the arrest. The panel held that the presiding referee’s order, by its clear terms, did not authorize the deputy sheriff to seize plaintiff, and that no reasonable officer could have understood the referee as ordering that plaintiff be forcibly brought into court. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part, in a memorandum disposition, the district court’s denial of quasi- judicial immunity, and its adverse verdict on plaintiff’s state law and excessive force claims. DEMUTH V. CTY. OF LOS ANGELES 3
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.