Butts
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Canby, J.
James McNally and James Bey, California state prisoners, joined in bringing this civil rights action against the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, California, individual police officers and their respective Chiefs of Police. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . McNally and Bey complain that they were the victims of a policy of the defendant police to defy the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The alleged policy, set forth in certain training programs and materials, was to continue to interrogate suspects “outside Miranda” despite the suspects’ invocation of their right to remain silent and their requests for an attorney.
The district court denied the motions of individual defendants James Butts, Jr., Shane Talbot, Ray Cooper, Raymond Bennett and Michael Crosby, for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. 2 Those officers have now brought this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of immunity. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We affirm the order of the district court denying qualified immunity.
BACKGROUND
Miranda requires that, once “the individual indicates…
Concurrence in Part
Schwarzer, J.
Dissenting and Concurring:
I respectfully dissent as to plaintiff James Bey and concur in the judgment as to plaintiff James McNally. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), tells us that the discretionary acts of government officials are protected by qualified immunity unless
Id. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . In determining the validity of the qualified immunity claim, therefore, we must look at the state of the law at the time the conduct complained of occurred. See Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist., 54 F.3d 1447 , 1451 (9th Cir.1995) (qualified immunity upheld because right of action under Title IX not clearly established until Supreme Court so decided, subsequent to the complained of conduct).
I. BEY
The majority rests its decision on the proposition that “[o]fficers who intentionally violate the rights protected by Miranda [[by] insistence ... on questioning after, invocation of the right to silence and unequivocal requests for counsel] must expect to have to defend themselves in civil actions.” Op. at 1050. Plaintiff James Bey was interrogated on March 8, 1991, by Officers Raymond Bennett and Michael Crosby. On February 6, 1991, one month…