Watson

Watson v. Albin

Good Law
551 F. Supp. 2d 954·2008 WL 1787121·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31445
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 16, 2008C-06-07767 RMWCalifornia4,011 words

Opinion

Opinion

Whyte, J.

ORDER DENYING AGENT ALBIN’S AND AGENT RUBINO’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 68, 70]

This case arises from a probation search conducted by the Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team (“SCCSET”). The plaintiffs are Dwight Watson and his three children: his stepson Daniel Farias and his daughters Lauren and Nicole Watson. The only remaining defendants in the case are agents Glenn Albin, David Mendez, Mike D’Antonio, and Mike Rubi-no. Agents Albin and Rubino move for summary judgment on various claims directed against them. Agents Mendez and D’Antonio do not move for summary judgment. The plaintiffs oppose the motions. The court has read the papers and considered the arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motions for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Events Leading Up to the Incident at the Watson Home

Over the course of October 2005, SCCSET agents believed that Curtis Fari-as was selling narcotics out of a home at 74 Decorah Lane in Campbell, California (“the Watson home”). See Docket No. 93, Deck of K.C. Allan Waldron (“Waldron Deck”), Ex. C at 6:8-9. Agent David Mendez discovered that Mr. Farias had two probation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.