Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9489
9th Cir.2016Background
- On Oct. 2, 2010, San Diego police responded to a 9‑1‑1 call reporting two armed black males near an apartment complex; callers later clarified some descriptive details.
- Officers (eventually >20, several with AR‑15s and laser sights) approached a Samoan family holding a child’s birthday party; three Samoan teenage boys were in the parking lot; one held a plastic paintball/toy gun.
- Officers pointed guns, ordered persons to the ground, handcuffed, searched, and detained most family members; several were placed in police cars and some injured during forceful handcuffing; the apartment was searched without a warrant or consent.
- No weapons or contraband were found; no arrests or charges were ultimately filed and no incident reports were written.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law for unlawful arrest/detention, illegal searches, and excessive force; district court denied qualified immunity for officers (granted for city); defendants appealed only the qualified‑immunity denial for unlawful arrest/search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seizure/arrest of the three teenagers (G.S., T.O.S., B.F.) | Officers unlawfully arrested/seized teens after learning the item was a toy; no probable cause | Initial show of weapon justified investigatory stop and continued detention pending investigation | Arrests violated Fourth Amendment once weapon known to be a toy; no reasonable officer could have thought probable cause existed (no immunity) |
| Seizure/arrest of Sialoi Sialoi Jr. | Arrested without probable cause after he protested officers pointing guns at children; noncompliance was brief/peaceful | Temporary noncompliance justified detention; threat environment justified tactics | Taking facts for plaintiffs, arrest lacked probable cause; clearly established law—no immunity |
| Seizure/search of remaining plaintiffs (group detention/frisks) | Detentions and frisks lacked reasonable suspicion and were unreasonable searches | Presence at night in high‑crime area and proximity to teens supported detention/frisks | No specific, articulable suspicion for detentions or frisks; searches violated Fourth Amendment; no immunity |
| Warrantless search of the apartment | Entry/search was presumptively unreasonable; no exigency or Buie basis because officers already secured scene and knew toy was not a real gun | Search justified as protective sweep (Buie) or exigent search to locate second gun | Buie inapplicable and exigency unsupported; warrantless search violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law; no immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop and frisk framework for investigatory stops)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep scope incident to arrest)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrantless searches of homes presumptively unreasonable)
- Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 756 F.3d 1154 (warrantless entry unreasonable where no evidence of weapons/violence)
- Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (factors distinguishing investigatory stop from arrest)
- United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067 (probable cause requires particularized facts; may dissipate with new information)
- Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406 (probable cause must be particularized to the arrestee)
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (unlawful investigatory stop/search unsupported by reasonable suspicion)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (searches must be particularized; cannot rely on generalized suspicion)
- Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071 (qualified immunity and "reasonably arguable" probable cause standard)