Moreno

Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Sean Banks and Thomas Garcia (“Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity in a § 1983 action brought by plaintiff Richard Moreno. Moreno alleges that Appellants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of his constitutional rights when they arrested and searched him without cause.

Factual Background

One evening in January- 2000, Richard Moreno and his companion Joe Rodriguez were on their way to a meeting at St. Lucy’s Church in the City Terrace area of Los Angeles. After their car broke down, Moreno and Rodriguez proceeded toward the meeting on foot. At approximately 7 p.m., a marked Los Angeles County Sheriff patrol car passed them as they walked down the street, made a U-turn, and pulled the car onto the curb in their path. Two deputies got out of the car. Deputy Banks, who was riding in the passenger seat, ordered Moreno and Rodriguez to approach. Banks interrogated both men as to their business in the area, patted them down for weapons, emptied the contents of their pockets onto the hood of the patrol car, and locked them into the back seat. While Moreno and…

concurring in the judgment:

I agree with my colleagues that the district court properly denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on their qualified immunity defense, and thus I concur in the judgment affirming the decision of the district court. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority’s stated conclusion that the Defendants’ actions violated Moreno’s constitutional rights on the theory that reasonable suspicion is required to justify a search or seizure of a parolee, even though the relevant terms of Moreno’s parole would appear to permit a warrantless search or seizure. The majority’s conclusion to that effect is entirely irrelevant to the result reached in this case and should appropriately be disregarded.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is based on a claim of qualified immunity. As the majority correctly notes, ante at 1156, the Supreme Court, in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), established a two-step analysis for determining whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity. The first question is whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

R. MORENO, in his individual 

capacity and in his capacity as representative of the classes described fully herein, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 02-55627

LEROY BACA; MICHAEL

ANTONOVICH; YVONNE BURKE;  D.C. No.

CV 00-07149 ABC

DONALD KNABE; GLORIA MOLINA;

ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, OPINION

Defendants, and BANKS, Deputy Sheriff # 403862; GARCIA, Deputy Sheriff # 412525, Defendants-Appellants.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2003—Pasadena, California Submission Withdrawn October 8, 2003 Resubmitted February 16, 2005

Filed March 7, 2005

Before: Harry Pregerson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge Clifton 2657 MORENO v. BACA 2661

COUNSEL

Devallis Rutledge, Manning & Marder Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Irvine, California, for defendants-appellants.

Kathryn S. Bloomfield, Yagman & Yagman & Reichmann & Bloomfield, Venice Beach, California, for…