Adolfo Lemus v. Paul Barile
711 F. App'x 859
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Paul Barile (defendant officer) appealed denial of qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim for a warrantless entry onto the Lemus residence.
- Barile responded to a noise and gunshot complaint and observed remnants of a social gathering (bonfire, music, people).
- Barile claimed he recognized the property from an investigation over ten years earlier.
- Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges the entry was warrantless and not justified by emergency or exigent circumstances.
- The district court denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage; this interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barile is entitled to qualified immunity for warrantless entry | Lemus: facts plausibly show entry violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | Barile: entry was reasonable under emergency or exigent circumstances | Denied—plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to overcome qualified immunity at pleading stage |
| Whether emergency (officer/safety) exception applied | Lemus: no objectively reasonable basis to believe immediate harm existed | Barile: presence of gunshot report justified entry for safety | No—allegations plausibly show lack of objective basis for emergency exception |
| Whether exigent circumstances/probable cause existed | Lemus: gunshot report and party remnants did not establish probable cause or exigency | Barile: report of gunshots and scene justified warrantless search | No—allegations plausibly show no probable cause or exigent circumstances |
| Proper standard of review at pleading stage | Lemus: complaint must plausibly allege violation of clearly established law | Barile: district court erred in denying immunity at pleading stage | Affirmed—court reviews de novo and applies Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (clearly established rights analysis for qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (modified Saucier on qualified immunity sequencing)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry presumptively unconstitutional)
- Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (9th Cir.) (standards for emergency and exigent exceptions)
- Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 (officers must independently investigate citizen reports for probable cause)
- United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (requirements for objectively reasonable belief of immediate danger)
- Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of denial of immunity at pleading stage)
- Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633 (9th Cir.) (appellate courts may affirm on any record-supported basis)