Fouts

Fouts v. County of Clark

Good Law
76 F. App'x 825
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 30, 2003No. 02-16635; D.C. No. CV-00-01153-KJD/PALCalifornia699 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*826 MEMORANDUM *

William and Geri Fouts (“the Foutses”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the County of Clark, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and three county public response officers in the Foutses’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants unlawfully removed a number of inoperative vehicles from the 1.1 acres surrounding the Foutses’ home. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, after de novo review, we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them here only as necessary to our disposition. The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to entry onto private land to search for and abate suspected nuisances. Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1990). However, judicial processes other than the issuance of a warrant can satisfy the Fourth Amendment. See Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 323-25 , 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978); Conner, 897 F.2d at 1491 n. 7; see also Henderson v. Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052 , 1057-58 (9th Cir.2002). Nevada state court review and affirmance…

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.