Hoot v. Nye County, Nevada, 2:13-cv-02142

On Jan 17, 2012, Robert Hoot walked alone in camouflage on a deserted dead-end road leading toward a national security site; he was reading a hardcover book.
Deputy Kenneth Nagy, patrolling the road, encountered Hoot about 1.6 miles from the site; as Nagy’s vehicle approached, Hoot angled into a ditch eight feet off the road.
The area had a history of unauthorized infiltrations near the site’s gate. There were no other people, vehicles, or structures in sight.
Nagy stopped Hoot, asked what he was doing, ordered him to stand in front of the patrol car, and requested identification. Hoot asked the basis for the stop; Nagy said walking and reading near the security site was unusual.
Nagy radioed Hoot’s ID, which came back clear, and then released Hoot. Hoot sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an unlawful stop and a Monell failure-to-train/supervise claim against Nye County.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court evaluated reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances and considered qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nagy had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop	Hoot contends his conduct (walking and reading, 1.6 miles from site) was innocent and did not furnish particularized suspicion	Nagy argues the totality (camouflage, deserted dead-end road toward a breached security site, veering into ditch as patrol approached) gave rise to reasonable suspicion	Court: Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances
Whether Nagy (and supervisors) are entitled to qualified immunity if the stop lacked reasonable suspicion	Hoot argues constitutional rights were violated and immunity should not apply	Defendants argue law was not clearly established for the precise factual scenario, so objective reasonableness protects them	Court: Even if suspicion was lacking, Nagy and supervisors entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law governed this factual mix
Whether the Monell claim survives if no constitutional violation	Hoot asserts municipal liability based on failure to train/supervise	County contends Monell claim fails without underlying constitutional violation	Court: Monell claim fails because court found no constitutional violation (or alternatively immunity)

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable suspicion assessed by totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (totality approach and avoiding divide-and-conquer analysis)
United States v. Palos-Marquez, 59 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for discretionary acts)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness for qualified immunity)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (officers entitled to immunity where reasonable officers could disagree)