Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075

Kristin Maxwell-Bruce was shot in the jaw by her husband, Deputy Lowell Bruce, at their home on December 14, 2006; emergency responders evaluated her but she died en route after delays and a multi-department response.
Police and Alpine Fire personnel responded; Knobbe, Reynolds, Salazar, and others secured the crime scene while arranging medical transport.
Jim and Kay Maxwell faced detention and separation from Kristin, were not allowed to rejoin her, and were later subjected to pepper spray and a baton strike during an attempt to rejoin the residence area.
Viejas Fire Department paramedics Avi and Felber treated Kristin under a mutual aid agreement with Alpine Fire District; the case involves their liability in state-law torts and potential tribal immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity to sheriff’s officers and dismissed for lack of tribal jurisdiction the Viejas defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part, with a dissent by Judge Ikuta.
The issues concern whether the officers’ conduct violated constitutional rights, whether those rights were clearly established, and whether tribal sovereign immunity bars suit against Viejas paramedics.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Kristin's due process right violated by ambulance delay?	Maxwells argue delay heightened danger and violated bodily security.	Sheriffs officers contend delay was not clearly unlawful given urgency and scene constraints.	Qualified immunity denied for due process claim; danger-creation analysis allowed dispute to proceed.
Were the Maxwells unlawfully seized during testimony and investigation?	Detention of witnesses violated Fourth Amendment rights.	Detentions during crime-scene processing were reasonable under Summers/Mena/McArthur.	Qualified immunity denied for the detention claim; the court held the detentions could be unreasonable under state interests.
Did Jim Maxwell receive excessive force or lack probable cause in arrest?	Pepper spray and baton against Jim constituted excessive force/arrest without probable cause.	Use of minimal force to enforce a brief detention was reasonable; no probable cause lacked.	There was no probable cause and the force used was excessive, supporting supervisor liability findings (majority view for this point).
Do Viejas paramedics have tribal sovereign immunity as individuals?	Viejas waived immunity via mutual aid agreements; immunity should not bar suit.	Immunity should extend to Viejas defendants given official capacity; agreements preserve immunity.	Viejas paramedics do not enjoy tribal sovereign immunity as individuals; immunity does not bar suit.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (rebalances order of inquiries for qualified immunity)
Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (danger creation and right to bodily security context)
Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989) (danger creation exception and police conduct in danger)
Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (emergency medical care and affirmative actions increasing risk raise liability)
Lidster v. Illinois, 540 U.S. 419 (U.S. 2004) (traffic-stop information-search reasonableness and minimal intrusion)
Summer v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1981) (detention of occupants incident to search authority)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (detention authority during a search is categorical)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (U.S. 2001) (exigent circumstances justify detention without warrant)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (U.S. 1969) (police can request voluntary cooperation but cannot compel)
United States v. Ward, 488 F.2d 162 (9th Cir. 1973) (investigative detention of witnesses subject to limits)