Derris Hurth v. County of Los Angeles
11-55562
| 9th Cir. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Derris Hurth was stopped and arrested by Los Angeles County deputies in a gang injunction area; deputies observed loose interior car panels and knew Hurth’s gang membership and prior narcotics convictions.
- Deputies arrested Hurth for loitering with intent to engage in a drug-related offense under the Hoover Gang injunction and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11532; Hurth was also subjected to a pat-down search.
- Hurth sued claiming unlawful arrest and unlawful pat-down search, arguing lack of probable cause and lack of reasonable suspicion for a weapons frisk.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and addressed qualified immunity and the Terry frisk standard.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest claim because the law was not clearly established, and the pat-down was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Unlawful arrest / qualified immunity | Hurth: No probable cause for loitering; statute requires temporal element, so arrest unlawful | Defendants: Officers reasonably believed facts supported loitering and intent to commit drug offense given gang injunction, prior convictions, and car observations | Held: Qualified immunity; law not clearly established, reasonable officers could differ on loitering and intent |
| 2. Unlawful pat-down search (Terry) | Hurth: No reasonable articulable suspicion to frisk for weapons | Defendants: Observations (loose car panels, gang affiliation, narcotics history, location in gang territory, baggy clothing, no explanation) justified concern for officer safety and weapons frisk | Held: Frisk lawful; reasonable, articulable suspicion supported pat-down (Terry) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (establishes clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (an officer’s knowledge of criminal history and context can support arrest decisions)
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (qualified immunity when reasonable officers could believe probable cause existed)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standard for stop-and-frisk and reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. $109,179 in U.S. Currency, 228 F.3d 1080 (nexus between suspected drug trafficking and reasonable belief suspect may be armed)
- United States v. Davis, 530 F.3d 1069 (discusses suspicion that drug traffickers may be armed)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (absence of constitutional violation negates need for qualified immunity analysis)
- Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (summary judgment review standard)