Gaerman

Gaerman v. Alevy

Good Law
134 F. App'x 150
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 2005No. 03-36001California909 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Martin C. Alevy, George E. Chamberlin, Frank Heckendorn, Robert Stewart, and Monika Wasiewicz appeal the district court’s interlocutory summary judgment order denying their motion for qualified immunity. We affirm the district court, but on different grounds.

The district court concluded that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Defendants subjectively believed they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Fanya Gaerman. In reaching this conclusion, it appears that the district court may have used an incorrect standard. In cases involving probable cause arrests, subjective intentions do not matter and instead the “the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Consequently, when ruling upon Defendants’ motion for qualifled immunity, the district court should have…

Dissenting Opinion

Clifton, J.

dissenting.

I agree that the proper standard is whether the officers’ actions were objectively reasonable, not whether the Defendants involved did, in fact, mistake Plaintiff for her daughter. I disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion on that issue, however, and thus respectfully dissent.

The primary subject of the investigation was Ilya Adamidov, Plaintiffs grandson. The officers had probable cause to arrest Ilya and also had probable cause to arrest Ilya’s mother (and Plaintiffs daughter), Revekka Adamidov. Nothing in the record indicates that the officers knew that Ilya’s grandmother (Plaintiff) was in the picture, let alone that they knew the respective ages of Revekka and Plaintiff. In the context of this case, therefore, the proper question is whether it was objectively reasonable for the arresting officers to believe that Plaintiff could have been Ilya’s mother.

When Plaintiff was arrested, she was in a vehicle with Ilya, which was leaving Revekka’s residence. The arresting officers suspected that Ilya and Revekka would be fleeing together and were unaware of any older woman that Ilya was associated with other than Revekka. It was not implausible for the officers to…

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.