Amili et al v. City of Tukwila, et al, No. 2:2013cv01299 - Document 37 (W.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER granting pltfs' 17 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying dfts' cross-motion 23 by Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amili et al v. City of Tukwila, et al Doc. 37 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 JAHMEZ A. AMILI II and CHARLES A. CHAPPELLE II, 10 CASE NO. C13-1299-JCC ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 CITY OF TUKWILA, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 16 (Dkt. No. 17) and Defendants‘ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amendment 17 Seizure Issue (Dkt. No. 23). Having thoroughly considered the parties‘ briefing and the relevant 18 record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs‘ motion (Dkt. 19 No. 17) and DENIES Defendants‘ cross-motion (Dkt. No. 23) for the reasons explained herein. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 This case concerns Defendant Officer Zachary Anderson‘s stop and eventual arrest of 22 Plaintiffs in the early morning hours of May 12, 2012. Officer Zachary Anderson is a police 23 officer with the Tukwila Police Department. (Anderson Dep. 10–11 (Dkt. No. 18, Ex.1 at 6).) 24 Plaintiffs are African American brothers who were walking to their mother‘s house. (Dkt. No. 17 25 at 2.) 26 At approximately 2:40 a.m. on that day, officers received a 911 call about a reported fight ORDER PAGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 on a private party bas in the parking lot of the Southcenter Mall. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2; Dkt. No. 23 at 2 2.) Officer Anderson left the police station to drive toward the mall. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2; 23 at 3.) 3 As Officer Anderson was driving, he saw Plaintiffs walking along an overpass. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2; 4 Dkt. No. 23 at 3.) There was no sidewalk on the side of the road on which they were walking, 5 although there was a sidewalk on the other side of the bridge. (Anderson Dep. 35:10–13 (Dkt. 6 No. 25, Ex. B at 6).) 7 Officer Anderson made a U-turn and stopped his car on the other side of the overpass. 8 (Dkt. No. 17 at 2; Dkt. No. 23 at 4.) He exited his car and told them that he was investigating a 9 fight, that he needed them to come to his car, and that they weren‘t free to leave. (Dkt. No. 17 at 10 2; Dkt. No. 23 at 4.) Plaintiffs, using expletives, said that they hadn‘t done anything and refused 11 to come to his car. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2–3; Dkt. No. 23 at 4–5.) They continued walking. (Dkt. No. 12 17 at 3; Dkt. No. 23 at 5.) Officer Anderson then informed Plaintiffs that they were under arrest 13 for obstructing a law enforcement officer. See Wash. Rev. Code 9A.76.020(1). (Dkt. No. 17 at 3; 14 Dkt. No. 23 at 5.) Officer Anderson pointed his taser gun at Plaintiffs from across the road. (Dkt. 15 No. 17 at 3; Dkt. No. 23 at 6.) At this point, Officer Prasad arrived, followed seconds later by 16 Officer Erik Kunsmann. (Dkt. No. 17 at 3; Dkt. No. 23 at 6.) Plaintiffs were then apprehended. 17 Plaintiffs filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on July 22, 2013 listing two causes of action: 18 unconstitutional use of excessive force, and violations by the city and police chief. (Dkt. No. 1.) 19 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants move for partial summary judgment on whether the initial seizure 20 by Officer Anderson was unlawful. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2; Dkt. No. 23 at 2.) Whether excessive force 21 was used is not an issue on summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 23 at 20.) 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 A. 24 The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine Standard on Summary Judgment 25 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the case‘s outcome. See Anderson v. ORDER PAGE - 2 1 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if there 2 is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. at 3 49. At the summary judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 4 nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the nonmovant‘s favor. See 5 Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 B. Section 1983 Claims 7 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff may hold police officers personally liable for 8 violations of the plaintiff‘s constitutional rights. The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, 9 protects government officers performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil 10 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 11 rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 12 818 (1982). In determining whether an officer‘s actions are protected by qualified immunity, a 13 court asks two questions in whatever order it chooses: (1) whether the alleged misconduct 14 violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged 15 misconduct. Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941, 947 (2012). 16 C. Whether The Alleged Misconduct Violated A Right 17 The Fourth Amendment protects [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, 18 houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. 19 On the record here, the Court must first determine when a seizure occurred and then determine 20 whether that seizure was unreasonable. 21 1. When the seizure occurred 22 [A] person is seized‘ only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his 23 freedom of movement is restrained. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980). 24 The parties disagree about when the encounter became a seizure. Plaintiffs contend they were 25 seized when Officer Anderson ordered them to come to his car and told them that they were not 26 free to leave. (Dkt. No. 17 at 9 (citing Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 (seizure occurs once ORDER PAGE - 3 1 reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave ); State v. Richardson, 825 2 P.2d 754 (1992) (same).) Defendants argue that no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred until 3 [Plaintiffs] were physically subdued by officers. (Dkt. No. 23 at 13 (citing Mendenhall, 446 4 U.S. at 553 (no seizure until freedom of movement is restrained ); Brendlin v. California, 551 5 U.S. 249, 254 (2007) (absent actual submission there is only an attempted seizure ); United 6 States v. Smith, 633 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2011)). In Defendants‘ view, Plaintiffs evaded any 7 effective seizure until they were physically arrested, at which point their active resistance 8 contributed to the probable cause necessary for their arrest. (Dkt. No. 23 at 14.) 9 There is no dispute that Plaintiffs initially continued walking away from Officer 10 Anderson. There is also no dispute, however, that as they were walking away Officer Anderson 11 pointed a taser at them, told them to stop, and they stopped. (Prasad Dep. 43, 44:4–8 (Dkt. No. 12 25 at 7–8) (When Officer Prasad arrived, Officer Anderson was pointing a taser at Plaintiffs; 13 they were asked to stop several times; they stopped within a few seconds of Prasad‘s arrival).); 14 (Anderson Dep. at 64:10–18, 67 (Dkt. No. 25-2 at 3–4) (Plaintiffs continued walking, 15 Anderson told them at that point that they were under arrest for obstructing a public servant, 16 and took [his] taser out, and decided to wait to make contact with them until other officers 17 arrived).) As described by Defendants: To keep the men from simply walking away while he 18 waited for back-up officers to arrive, Officer Anderson took out his taser and held plaintiffs at 19 taser-point. (Dkt. No. 23 at 6, lines 2–4.) Even assuming that Officer Anderson‘s statement that 20 Plaintiffs were not free to leave did not constitute a seizure, they were effectively seized when 21 they stopped at his command while having a taser pointed at them. Cf. Brendlin v. California, 22 551 U.S. 249, 254 (2007) ( no seizure without actual submission ); Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 555 23 (no seizure when DEA agents wore no uniforms, displayed no weapons, and issued no 24 commands); United States v. Smith, 633 F.3d 889, 892–93 (2011) (no seizure when suspect 25 engaged in short verbal exchange with officer before turning around and running away). The 26 question thus becomes whether this seizure was constitutional. ORDER PAGE - 4 1 2. Reasonable Suspicion 2 The parties agree that the reasonableness of the seizure depends on whether Officer 3 Anderson‘s seizure of Plaintiffs was a justified investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 4 1 (1968). (Dkt. No. 17 at 8; Dkt. No. 23 at 10–11 (citing Terry and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 5 491 (1983), in stating That is exactly what Officer Anderson was trying to do .).) An 6 investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, 7 or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 8 (1981); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 (recognizing government interest in approach[ing] a 9 person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior ). Courts must consider the 10 totality of the circumstances to determine whether the police officer had a particularized and 11 objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 12 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Thompson, 282 F.3d 673, 678 (9th 13 Cir. 2002) ( [S]pecific, articulable facts . . . together with objective and reasonable inferences, 14 [must] form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal 15 activity. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 16 The Court concludes that the totality of the circumstances here gave Officer Anderson no 17 reasonable basis for detaining Plaintiffs. Defendants rely heavily on Plaintiffs‘ apparent lack of 18 cooperation—i.e., their walking away—in arguing that Anderson had reasonable suspicion for 19 seizing them.1 (Dkt. No. 23 at 12–14.) This reliance is misplaced. Although Defendants are not 20 entirely clear on this point, they argue that Plaintiffs were not initially seized (Dkt. No. 23 at 13), 21 which would suggest that Officer Anderson initiated the stop as a consensual encounter. See 22 United States v. White, 584 F.3d 935, 944–45 (10th Cir. 2009) ( [T]he Supreme Court has 23 recognized three types of police-citizen encounters: consensual encounters, investigative 24 detentions, and arrests. ). During a consensual encounter, individuals may lawfully choose not to 25 26 1 The following analysis would apply regardless of whether the seizure occurred when Officer Anderson said they were not free to leave or when he had them stopped at taser-point. ORDER PAGE - 5 1 cooperate with a police officer, and that disregard does not create reasonable suspicion. Florida 2 v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) ( We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, 3 without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention 4 or seizure. ); Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 (no seizure [a]s long as the person to whom 5 questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away ); United States v. 6 Smith, 633 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011) ( Had [Defendant] simply continued to go about his 7 business, or walked away [upon being commanded to stand in front of police car], [then the 8 police officer] would not have had reasonable suspicion to seize him. ); United States v. Fuentes, 9 105 F.3d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1997) ( Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise 10 to reasonable suspicion or probable cause. ). Even if the stop was initiated as an investigative 11 stop, Plaintiffs‘ interactions during the encounter would not contribute to the stop‘s 12 reasonableness, because reasonable suspicion must exist when the stop is initiated. See United 13 States v. Thomas, 863 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1988) ( Founded suspicion must exist at the time 14 the officer initiates the stop. ). 15 True, an individual‘s flight from police may contribute to an officer‘s reasonable 16 suspicion, see Smith, 633 F.3d at 893–94, but there is no suggestion that Plaintiffs attempted to 17 flee. By Officer Anderson‘s own description, Plaintiffs were walking northbound, and after 18 speaking with him, they continued walking northbound. (Anderson Dep. at 64, 67 (Dkt. No. 19 25, Ex. B at 8).) Flight, by its very nature, is not going about one‘s business,‘ Illinois v. 20 Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000), yet going about their business is precisely what Plaintiffs 21 continued doing. Defendants imply—although do not state explicitly and cite no case law in 22 support—that Plaintiffs‘ use of expletives is somehow relevant. (Dkt. No. 23 at 12.) The use of 23 expletives does not transform an otherwise-legal refusal to answer questions into the basis for a 24 legitimate Terry stop. See United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077, 1082 (2001) ( We have 25 repeatedly emphasized that while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene 26 words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal ORDER PAGE - 6 1 to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First 2 Amendment.‘ (citing Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990)). 3 The Washington obstruction statute does not change this analysis, nor do Defendants 4 suggest that it does. Instead, Defendants merely note that the obstruction statute furnishes 5 authority for arrest if an officer has the requisite reasonable suspicion, and the subject refuses to 6 comply. (Dkt. No. 28 at 3 (emphasis added).) See also State v. Barnes, 978 P.2d 1131, 1136 7 (Wash. App. Div. 3, 1999) (statute requires citizens to comply with officers discharging lawful 8 official duties and [a]n unlawful detention is by definition not part of lawful police duties ). The 9 Washington statute therefore does not assist this Court in assessing whether requisite reasonable 10 suspicion existed initially. 11 Having determined that Plaintiffs walking away could not contribute to the reasonable- 12 suspicion calculus, the next determination is what factors did contribute to that calculus. In 13 Defendants‘ words, considerations justifying Officer Anderson‘s actions are: 14 Very late evening hours, close to 3 a.m.; Plaintiffs‘ presence in the near vicinity to reported fight activity; Timing of plaintiffs‘ presence at location consistent with timing of report; Plaintiffs walking away from, not toward, the reported fight location; No reports of others in area; Fight activity reportedly associated with a party bus‘ raising possibility of alcohol consumption; Credible, self-identifying report party, mall security; Plaintiffs‘ presence on the fog line near the travel lane when a sidewalk was available on the other side of the street; Disarray‘ of plaintiffs‘ clothing consistent with possible involvement in a confrontation. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (Dkt. No. 23 at 12.) 23 Several of these considerations deserve little or no weight. For example, at the time of the 24 incident, Officer Anderson did not know the identity of the person who reported the fight 25 (Anderson Dep. 42:13–22 (Dkt. No. 18, Ex. 1 at 14)), so the credibility of the reporting party is 26 irrelevant in considering whether there was an objective basis for reasonable suspicion, see ORDER PAGE - 7 1 Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153 (2004) (facts known by an officer are relevant in 2 determining whether probable cause existed); Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 639 (9th Cir. 2005) 3 (facts that could render a search reasonable are irrelevant if unknown to the officer at the time). 4 Next, the Court is perplexed by Defendants‘ ungrammatical statement: [f]ight activity 5 reportedly associated with a party bus‘ raising possibility of alcohol consumption. Defendants 6 provide no reasoning to suggest how this general proposition—that party buses are generally 7 associated with alcohol consumption—could contribute to a particularized basis for suspecting 8 someone walking on a street of criminal activity. The undisputed evidence is that Officer 9 Anderson had no awareness of whether Plaintiffs had been consuming alcohol until he smelled 10 alcohol as he approached them, moments before the takedown. (Anderson Dep. 22:25–23:3 11 (Dkt. No. 18, Ex. 1 at 9).) Any suspected alcohol use or connection to a party bus is therefore 12 irrelevant in considering the reasonableness of the seizure, which occurred when Officer 13 Anderson first held Plaintiffs at taser-point. 14 Turning to consideration of Plaintiffs‘ appearance, the Court notes that Anderson‘s 15 explanation of what he meant by disarray of plaintiffs‘ clothing is that it appeared kind of 16 wrinkled, a little out of sorts. . . . kind of tussled in some sort of manner based on some of the 17 kind of wrinkles that I recall. (Anderson Dep. 53:5–8 (Dkt. No. 18, Ex. 1 at 16).) There is no 18 suggestion that the disarray included blood stains or tears, nor did Officer Anderson have any 19 information about identifying characteristics for any individuals involved. Neither do Defendants 20 suggest how the fact that Plaintiffs were not walking on the sidewalk demonstrates that they had 21 assaulted someone. Finally, although Plaintiffs‘ temporal and physical proximity is the strongest 22 factor in Defendants‘ favor, even that consideration‘s relevance is weakened somewhat by the 23 fact that the reported incident was on a moving bus, not at a fixed location like most crime 24 scenes. 25 With these qualifications, Defendants‘ argument reduces to these observations: it was late 26 at night in an area that, like most areas at 3 a.m., did not have many people; Plaintiffs were in a ORDER PAGE - 8 1 location and walking in a direction consistent with proximity to a reported fight on a bus; they 2 were not walking on the sidewalk; and their clothing was wrinkled. Considering all these factors 3 together, they do not suggest that Plaintiffs were engaged in criminal activity or were about to be 4 engaged in criminal activity. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417–18. Even assuming that a report of a 5 fight would justify an officer searching for a perpetrator of an assault, courts have repeatedly 6 rejected mere proximity or general appearance as the basis for a detention. See, e.g., Moreno, 7 431 F.3d at 643 (nervous behavior and walking away from officers in a high-crime area did not 8 create reasonable suspicion ); United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th 9 Cir. 2000) ( particularized suspicion not satisfied by broad or general profiles); Bradford v. City 10 of Seattle, 557 F.Supp.2d 1189, 1198 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (no reasonable suspicion when a 911 11 call predicted a fight between teen groups and officer observed a young man jogging past the 12 patrol car wearing a colored shirt that could have identified him as being part of one group). 13 Proximity to a reported fight that occurred on a moving bus late at night does not create a 14 reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if an individual looks disheveled or kind of 15 wrinkled. 16 D. Whether the Right Was Clearly Established 17 Having concluded that Plaintiffs have established the violation of a constitutional right, 18 the Court next considers whether the right was clearly established. Qualified immunity shields 19 an officer from suit when [he] makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, 20 reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances [he] confronted. Brosseau v. 21 Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the right 22 was clearly established. See Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1997). Contrary to 23 Defendants‘ suggestion (Dkt. No. 23 at 20), there need not be a case with this precise factual 24 scenario in order to deny qualified immunity. See Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1129 25 (9th Cir. 2011) ( [W]e have repeatedly stressed that officials can still have fair warning‘ that 26 their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances[.]‘ (citing Hope v. ORDER PAGE - 9 1 Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)). 2 The relevant facts are undisputed, and the Court concludes that the law was clearly 3 established that this detention would be illegal. Courts are unequivocal—and have been for 4 decades—that there must be a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal 5 wrongdoing. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (internal quotation marks 6 omitted); Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417–18 ( Based upon [the] whole picture the detaining officers 7 must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of 8 criminal activity. ); Terry, 392 U.S. at 22. Investigative stops are justified only if criminal 9 activity may be afoot—if the officer suspects that the person stopped is, or is about to be, 10 engaged in criminal activity. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417–18; Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 11 1683, 1690 (2014) (quoting Cortez)). The reasons to suspect Plaintiffs of being criminals here, 12 however, were tenuous at best. See, e.g., Moreno, 431 F.3d at 643 (nervous behavior and 13 walking away from officers in a high-crime area did not create reasonable suspicion ). United 14 States v. Hanson, 138 Fed. App‘x 39 at *2 (9th Cir. 2005) (no particularized suspicion when 15 defendants were in general area where two others had been attempting to smuggle marijuana: 16 The remoteness of the area, the proximity to the border, and the early hour [were] insufficient to 17 justify the stop. ). There was a non-specific report of a fight that identified no particular 18 individuals, and Plaintiffs‘ only connection to that nebulously criminal incident was proximity 19 and a general appearance of disarray. Even Defendants do not suggest how these facts could 20 create a particularized suspicion that Plaintiffs were guilty of criminal activity. 2 Defendants 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Although an officer‘s subjective intentions are irrelevant in determining whether a stop was objectively reasonable, even Officer Anderson did not think he had a basis for suspecting them of criminal activity; he simply wanted to talk with them and investigate what happened and their involvement and if they knew anything regarding the fight that happened nearby. (Anderson Dep. 59:2–5 (Dkt. No. 18 Ex. 1 at 18).) Similarly irrelevant is Officer Anderson‘s subjective belief that he could stop Plaintiffs because they theoretically might have committed property crimes. (Anderson Dep. 38:5–11, 40:17–24 (Dkt. No. 18, Ex. 1 at 13.) And although Anderson expressed concern for their safety in his deposition (Anderson Dep. 59:6–12 (Dkt. No. 18 Ex. 1 at 18)), Defendants do not suggest that this justified the stop. ORDER PAGE - 10 1 merely list a set of factors—a number of which must be disregarded as described above—and 2 then focus on demonstrating that Officer Anderson‘s subjective determinations are irrelevant. 3 (Dkt. No. 23 at 12, 16.) 4 Defendants are correct that reasonable-suspicion inquiries are generally fact-specific. 5 Yet cases in which courts have concluded that reasonable suspicion exists always require 6 something more specific—such as a suspect who matches a reported description or acts in a 7 manner consistent with reported criminal activity—linking the individual to a crime. See, e.g., 8 United States v. Mayo, 394 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2005) (officers had reasonable suspicion 9 when officers responded to a call about suspicious narcotics activity and observed a sequence 10 of events suggesting a transaction involving suspect that occurred in a high-crime area and in 11 front of a motel that hosted previous narcotics activity ); Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 12 F.3d 1315, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995) (reasonable suspicion existed when witness gave specific 13 descriptions of suspects‘ clothing and vehicle); United States v. Young, No. 13-0149, 2014 WL 14 321160 at *8 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2014) (although a close call, officers had reasonable suspicion 15 when suspect matched the physical description of a black male adult wearing a white t-shirt, and 16 the suspect was physically and temporally proximate to report of abandoned car, walking 17 quickly, and avoiding eye contact with police); Gillis v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 0818 3871-RS, 2011 WL 4404138 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (officers had reasonable suspicion when group of 19 three individuals were in an alley two blocks from where a mugging had been reported and bore 20 similarities to description of the three suspects); United States v. Howell, No. 06-260-JCC, 2007 21 WL 214259 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (reasonable suspicion when there was temporal and geographic 22 proximity to report of drug deal and individuals had similar clothing and were of the same race 23 as reported suspects). Here there was no description of any suspect, no specific criminal activity 24 identified, no suspicious behavior on the part of Plaintiffs, and only a general sense that 25 Plaintiffs‘ clothing was in disarray. To suggest that qualified immunity is nonetheless available 26 is to suggest that qualified immunity will always protect an officer‘s reasonable-suspicion ORDER PAGE - 11 1 determinations, no matter how ill-founded. See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is 2 clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute 3 immunity). 4 Even assuming that Officer Anderson had an unarticulated gut instinct that Plaintiffs had 5 assaulted some unidentified individual—although there is no suggestion that he did or reasonably 6 could have—this suspicion alone would not have sufficed. As the Ninth Circuit has written: 7 10 If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person‘s conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property. 11 Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378. 12 Plaintiffs‘ detention does not implicate the tangled factual web of reasonable-suspicion 8 9 13 calculations. Instead, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about the limits of a police 14 officer‘s ability to bring the full force of the law to bear upon a person who is not reasonably 15 suspected of being involved in criminal activity. 16 E. 17 Defendants move to strike a court reporter‘s transcript on the basis that it is inadmissible Motion to Strike 18 hearsay. (Dkt. No. 23 at 2 n.2.) The portion of the transcript to which Defendants object had no 19 relevance in this Court‘s decision so the Court declines to strike the transcript. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 Having thoroughly considered the parties‘ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 22 finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs‘ motion (Dkt. No. 17) and 23 DENIES Defendants‘ cross-motion (Dkt. No. 23) for the reasons explained herein. 24 // 25 // 26 ORDER PAGE - 12 1 DATED this 10th day of July 2014. 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER PAGE - 13
]]>
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.
