79 F.4th 996
9th Cir.2023Background
- On Jan 31, 2019, SFPD officers contacted Kirstin Johnson near her van with five minor children; officers suspected intoxication and possible child endangerment and obtained body‑worn camera footage.
- Officers observed (and documented) signs they say supported suspicion: odor of alcohol, Johnson’s admission she had a mixed drink earlier, unsealed alcohol containers in the van, and improperly arranged car seats; Johnson disputed some observations and was emotional while her children were present.
- Johnson was arrested and booked for public intoxication (Cal. Penal Code § 647(f)) and five counts of felony child endangerment (Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a)); children were temporarily placed with child services; the DA later declined prosecution and charges were dropped.
- Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unlawful arrest, First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, etc.) and asserted multiple state‑law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on probable cause grounds and, alternatively, on qualified immunity; Johnson appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit (majority) affirmed dismissal of federal claims based on qualified immunity, held that probable cause for arrest presents a jury question (vacating district‑court summary judgment on state false arrest and negligence claims), affirmed summary judgment on other state claims, and affirmed denial of recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest under CA § 647(f) (public intoxication) and § 273a(a) (child endangerment) | Johnson: no probable cause—she responded coherently, only had one drink earlier, children were being cared for, and facts do not objectively show intoxication or endangerment | Officers: smelled alcohol, Johnson admitted a drink, alcohol containers in van and unsecured car seats, children on street at night — facts supporting probable cause | Whether probable cause existed is a genuine issue for the jury; district court summary judgment on probable cause was improper for these claims (state false arrest/negligence vacated) |
| Qualified immunity on § 1983 unlawful‑arrest claims | Johnson: arrest violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights such that qualified immunity should not apply | Defendants: reasonable officers could have believed probable cause existed; no controlling precedent made arrest clearly unlawful | Affirmed: officers entitled to qualified immunity; federal § 1983 claims dismissed |
| State law claims other than false arrest/negligence (IIED, Bane Act, trespass to chattels) | Johnson: these claims survive | Defendants: alternative grounds defeat these claims (e.g., Gov’t Claims Act noncompliance, lack of required intent, conduct not extreme/outrageous) | Affirmed summary judgment for Defendants on IIED, Bane Act, trespass to chattels |
| Motion to recuse/disqualify Magistrate Judge | Johnson: judge’s remarks re: footage showed bias/appearance of prejudice | Defendants: remarks were proper given duty to protect minors; no extrajudicial bias | Denial of recusal affirmed (abuse‑of‑discretion standard not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard; view evidence for nonmoving party)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step framework)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (avoid defining clearly established law at high level of generality)
- Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity and when reasonable‑officer disagreement applies)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard—reasonable jury could return verdict for nonmoving party)
- Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1993) (probable cause threshold is question of law for the court)
- Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022) (Fourth Amendment false‑arrest standard in § 1983 context)
- United States v. Willy, 40 F.4th 1074 (9th Cir. 2022) (standard for evaluating facts supporting probable cause)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (courts look to state law to determine officer authority to arrest)