Meyers
Meyers v. Redwood City
Opinion
Opinion
Bybee, J.
Elizabeth Meyers and Millie Rovetta (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against police officers Steve Dowden and Christine O’Keefe and Redwood City (collectively, “Defendants”) for violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during a dispute over a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs allege that the Redwood City police officers, acting under color, of state law, unlawfully intervened in a vehicle repossession and violated their constitutional rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is an interlocutory appeal brought by Defendants from a denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. We conclude that Defendants, did not violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
I. BACKGROUND
The California Commercial Code provides a right of repossession for secured creditors. Section 9609 states that “[ajfter default, a secured party may ... [t]ake possession of the collateral ...…