918 F.3d 654
9th Cir.2019Background
- On May 7, 2012, Curtis Ayers, a California Board of Equalization (BOE) employee, visited Advanced Building & Fabrication without an appointment and had a confrontation with owner Robert Honan; Ayers’ laptop was damaged during the encounter.
- Ayers reported the incident to his supervisor and to the CHP; Officer John Wilson later obtained a warrant to search Advanced Building for electronic media, indicia of ownership/control, and correspondence related to alleged threats and vandalism.
- BOE supervisor Dwayne Sims invited Ayers to accompany CHP during the May 30, 2012 execution so BOE could “complete the inspection”; Ayers and Sims attended but did not actively assist CHP in the search (though Ayers identified Honan and looked at some records).
- Plaintiffs allege the search resulted in the seizure of substantial personal property; they sued under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Fourth Amendment violations.
- The district court denied summary judgment and qualified immunity to Ayers; Ayers appealed the denial of qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Ayers’ participation violated clearly established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOE inspection authority allowed Ayers to participate in the search without a warrant (administrative-search exception) | Honan: BOE statutes/regulations don’t authorize forcible or warrantless searches; thus exception doesn’t apply | Ayers: state law authorizes BOE inspections of business records, so his presence could fit the administrative-search exception | Held: No — cited state rules do not authorize forcible or warrantless entry; administrative-search exception inapplicable |
| Whether a non-law-enforcement government agent may accompany police during execution when not aiding the warrant's objectives (Wilson rule) | Honan: Ayers’ presence was unrelated to the warrant’s objectives (seizing media, indicia, correspondence) and thus violated the Fourth Amendment | Ayers: his role as a BOE inspector distinguished him from media/third parties in Wilson; he was completing an inspection | Held: Ayers’ presence was not "in aid of" the search’s objectives; Wilson prohibits bringing third parties unless they directly aid execution — violation found |
| Whether the right violated was clearly established (qualified-immunity prong) | Honan: Wilson clearly established that third parties not aiding a search cannot be present; a reasonable official should know this | Ayers: Wilson concerned reporters, not government inspectors; supervisor direction justified his attendance | Held: Right was clearly established under Wilson; supervisor direction did not negate clearly established constitutional prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (superseding discussion of when administrative searches of pervasively regulated businesses may be upheld)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (presence of third parties during warrant execution violates Fourth Amendment unless they aid the search)
- United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (upholding warrantless inspection of a federally licensed firearms dealer)
- Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (discussing regulatory inspections and diminished expectation of privacy)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clarifying not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality)