Clark v. City of Reno

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants appeal the district court’s summary judgment order dismissing their claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Reviewing the challenged order de novo, Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will not recount them here.

1. Unlawful Search. The Reno Police Department (“RPD”) officers were responding, promptly, to a report of possible gunfire emanating from appellants’ residence. A prompt — and limited — search for victims was therefore justified under the emergency doctrine. United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2000); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

Appellants allege, and present some evidence, that after entering the apartment, the officers opened cupboards and drawers and went through piles of dirty laundry looking for a gun or evidence of wrongdoing, although there is also evidence to the contrary. If proven, such conduct goes beyond what is permissible under the emergency doctrine’s limited exception to the Fourth…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in all of the court’s disposition except for part 3, which is also essentially correct, but which stops short of the ultimate holding that the analysis set forth in the disposition demands. I do not believe that any question of material fact remains as to whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their unlawful detention of the appellants; clearly they are not. Accordingly, summary judgment on that claim should be granted to plaintiffs.

As we hold in part 2 of the disposition, the detention of the plaintiffs clearly exceeded the bounds of a reasonable investigatory detention, and constituted an arrest without probable cause. Thus, for the purpose of the first prong of the qualified immunity test set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), a violation has been established. As we then noted in part 3 of our disposition, the law in this regard was clearly established. Any reasonable officer would have known that handcuffing and pinning down cooperative suspects known to be unarmed constituted an arrest, see Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 , 1187 (9th Cir.1996);…