JAVIER VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA, No. 21-55478 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
At issue was whether police officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff either for reports that he followed and harassed an attorney outside a courthouse or for Plaintiff’s refusal to identify himself during an investigatory stop. Defendants asserted that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on two grounds: (1) disturbing the peace under California Penal Code Section 415(2); and (2) obstructing an officer under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Pasadena and Pasadena police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested. Plaintiff first argued that, because he was arrested under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), that means it was disputed whether probable cause existed under Section 415(2). The panel disagreed, stating first that it was well-established that if the facts support probable cause for one offense, an arrest may be lawful even if the officer invoked, as the basis for the arrest, a different offense that lacked probable cause. Second, by the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, the officers learned enough facts to believe that Plaintiff had violated Section 415(2) and therefore had probable cause to make the arrest.
Having found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, there was no need to proceed to the second question of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct was not “clearly established.” Further, the panel held that no “controlling authority” or “robust consensus of cases” prohibited the officer from arresting Plaintiff under the facts confronting him
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Pasadena and Pasadena police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested. At issue was whether police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff either for reports that he followed and harassed an attorney outside a courthouse or for plaintiff’s refusal to identify himself during an investigatory stop. Defendants asserted that they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on two grounds: (1) disturbing the peace under California Penal Code § 415(2); and (2) obstructing an officer under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). Plaintiff first argued that, because he was arrested under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), that means it was disputed whether probable cause existed under § 415(2). The panel disagreed, stating first that it was well-established that if the facts support probable cause for one offense, an arrest may be lawful even if the officer invoked, as the basis for the arrest, a different offense which lacked probable cause. Second, by the time of plaintiff’s arrest, the officers learned enough facts to believe that plaintiff had violated § 415(2) and therefore had probable cause to make the arrest. Having found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, there was no need to proceed to the second question of the 4 VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not “clearly established.” Plaintiff next asserted that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) because the failure to identify oneself by itself does not violate the law. The panel held that no “controlling authority” or “robust consensus of cases” prohibited Officer Klotz from arresting plaintiff under the facts confronting him. Neither this court nor the Supreme Court has said that arresting a person for failing to provide an identification violates the Constitution. Thus, even if plaintiff’s failure to identify himself did not provide probable cause to arrest under § 148(a)(1)—a question that the panel did not need to decide—Officer Klotz had breathing room to make the purported mistake of law and he and the other officers were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff’s arrest. The panel further affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against the City on a failure-to-train theory because plaintiff failed to establish a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees. Concurring, Judge Bumatay stated that although the panel properly affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s false- arrest claim on qualified immunity, he was left wondering whether California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) authorizes officers to arrest a person based on the refusal to produce identification during a police investigation. Judge Bumatay found no California court case that categorically holds that the failure to identify oneself to an officer during a police investigation—without more—furnishes probable cause to arrest under § 148(a)(1). So even though the officers must receive qualified immunity here, plaintiff might be right that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for violating § 148(a)(1). In rebuttal to Judge Bress’s concurrence, Judge VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA 5 Bumatay stated that his concern is that federal courts may have gotten ahead of California courts in interpreting the law; it promotes the law to clarify whether the officers made a mistake by arresting plaintiff; this question was squarely presented in this appeal; and if California law was so clear it should have been an easy task to come up with California caselaw supporting Judge Bress’s view. Concurring, Judge Bress was compelled to write separately in this straightforward case only to address Judge Bumatay’s separate concurring opinion, which expounds on California criminal law and suggests that various federal court decisions interpreting California law may be wrongly decided. Judge Bress wrote to make clear that, in his respectful view, Judge Bumatay’s evaluation of California law was both unnecessary to the resolution of this case and substantively incorrect, advocating a narrow interpretation of California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) that California courts have not embraced. Here, plaintiff threatened an attorney following a court proceeding. That alone provided probable cause for his arrest under California Penal Code § 415(2), as the majority opinion correctly held. And so that was sufficient to dispose of Vanegas’s § 1983 claim asserting a Fourth Amendment violation for allegedly wrongful arrest. Concurring, Judge Benitez agreed with the court that summary judgment was properly granted for the City of Pasadena and its police officers. He wrote separately to explain that this was an easy case. Although, undoubtedly, an arrest for refusing to give one’s name without at least reasonable suspicion would be an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, that was not this case. Here, a crime had been reported. Plaintiff’s name was reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop and central to the investigation of a crime, whether the crime was stalking 6 VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA (Cal. Pen. Code § 646.9) or maliciously disturbing another by loud noise (Cal. Pen. Code § 415). At that point, the detective had probable cause to arrest for either offense and he had probable cause to arrest for violating Cal. Pen. Code § 148(a)(1) when plaintiff refused to disclose his name.
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.