Glenn Rosado v. County of San Diego
3:18-cv-00265
S.D. Cal.Feb 21, 2019Background
- On Sept. 22, 2017, three San Diego Sheriff’s deputies responded to a citizen complaint that plaintiff Glenn Rosado, an IRS employee, was impersonating an IRS agent and demanding money at an auto shop; Rosado was detained from ~3:03 p.m. to shortly after 4:44 p.m.
- Deputies reviewed Rosado’s ID, questioned him and the shop owner, searched the internet for IRS verification, and called multiple contacts (Rosado’s supervisor info, an IRS TIGTA agent, Sheriff Department contacts) to verify Rosado’s employment.
- During the investigation deputies observed facts that raised suspicion: Rosado initially resisted surrendering his IRS ID, had a Florida license though residing in California, appeared extremely nervous, and the owner reported prior threatening calls and a letter demanding payment.
- Deputies were unable at first to verify the IRS address on Rosado’s documents or find his name in a federal employee database; after multiple calls and photo verification the IRS agent (Agent Munoz) confirmed Rosado was an IRS employee and he was released.
- Rosado sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unreasonable seizure) and state-law claims for negligence and false arrest; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting reasonable investigatory stop and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for deputies | Rosado: detention violated Fourth Amendment so immunity not available | Deputies: acted reasonably and are entitled to qualified immunity | Deputies entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claim |
| Whether detention violated Fourth Amendment | Rosado: detention was unreasonable/long and amounted to arrest | Deputies: investigatory stop justified by articulable suspicion and diligence | Court: detention was a reasonable investigatory stop; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether law was "clearly established" | Rosado: rights were clearly established (no controlling case cited) | Deputies: no controlling precedent finding similar conduct unconstitutional | Court: plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent; not an obvious violation—law not clearly established |
| State-law claims (negligence, false arrest) | Rosado: asserts claims supplemental to § 1983 claim | Deputiffs: moved for summary judgment on federal claim only | Court: dismissed federal claim; declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine dispute standard)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (permitting brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (length of detention assessed by police diligence in investigation)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly established law cannot be defined at high level of generality)
- S.B. v. County of San Diego, 864 F.3d 1010 (plaintiff must identify precedent with similar circumstances to defeat qualified immunity)
- Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987 (routine examples of permissible investigatory stop duration and reasonableness)