Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076

SMPD sought a nighttime gang-association search warrant based on tips linking Javier Jr. to the Tangas and possible weapon storage related to a drive-by shooting.
The warrant affidavit listed Javier Jr.’s address at the Bravo residence and summarized his rap sheet, but omitted his two-year state prison sentence and custody status at the time.
SWAT executed the warrant at 5:30 am; Javier Jr. was not present; officers seized letters, photographs, and drawings but no weapons.
Detectives claimed they checked custody status via SBSO but records and testimonies showed no one recalls receiving such a request or obtaining reliable custody data for Javier Jr. in state prison.
The Bravos sued under § 1983 among others, arguing judicial deception and an unlawful nighttime search, leading to summary judgment against them which this court reverses in part.
The panel holds that material omissions about custody status, if proven intentional or reckless, can render the warrant invalid and the nighttime service unjustified, requiring remand for further fact-finding on liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Javier Jr.'s custody status a material omission?	Bravos contend omission undermines probable cause.	Tanore argues omission not material to probable cause.	Omission is material; corrected affidavit undermines probable cause.
Was the omission intentional or reckless rather than negligent?	Tanore deliberately/recklessly omitted custody status.	Omission was negligent at most.	Substantial showing of intentional or reckless omission exists; summary judgment improper.
Is nighttime SWAT service justified under corrected probable cause?	Nighttime service may be justified by probable cause even with omissions.	Javier Jr.'s custody status would not alter nighttime authorization.	Even with cause, nighttime service is not justified; cannot be sustained under totality of circumstances.
Does SBSO have integral liability for the warrant's execution and Monell liability?	SBSO integral participation or policy caused illicit execution.	SBSO had no control over execution of the Bravo warrant; no Monell liability established.	SBSO not an integral participant; Monell liability not established.

Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (even partial invalidity affects the search; not insulated from Fourth Amendment violation)
Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2009) (materiality of omissions assessed by whether corrected affidavit establishes probable cause)
Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1997) (material omissions and probable cause; accompanying standards for recklessness)
Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (integral participation and whether officers can be liable for acts of others)
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (no-knock entries justified by exigent circumstances; informs nighttime entry analysis)
United States v. Colonna, 360 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2004) (nighttime SWAT-style entries require higher justification than probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause based on totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2011) (common-sense in probable cause; young individuals and presumptions)
United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (need for individualized suspicion in searches and seizures)
Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005) (SWAT deployment considered for reasonableness under totality)
Alexander v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1994) (SWAT deployment and proportionality considerations)