Carole Saunders v. Richard Silva

Good Law
473 F. App'x 769
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 7, 201211-15134California483 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Richard Silva appeals from the district court’s order entering judgment against him on Carole Saunders’s claim that Silva violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The district court found that Silva seized Saunders when he ordered her to leave church and return to her home. It further found that this seizure was unreasonable because Silva, as a Deputy Animal Control Officer within the Yavapai County Sheriffs Office, lacked the authority to conduct an arrest. Although Silva was not authorized under Arizona law to arrest Saunders, “state restrictions [on arrest authority] do not alter the Fourth Amendment’s protections.” Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 176 , 128 S.Ct. 1598 , 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008). To constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, an arrest by a state officer must be unreasonable under the United States Constitution, rather than simply not in compliance with state laws. See United States v. Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1167, 1174-75 (9th Cir.2005).

In general, the “constitutionality of a warrantless arrest is determined by the existence of probable cause.” Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1990). In this…

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.