Lacy v. City of San Francisco, 3:19-cv-02662

On August 3, 2017, Denise Lacy brought her grandson Lamonte Mims to the San Francisco Hall of Justice; Lacy was accompanied by her eight‑year‑old granddaughter D.G.
Sergeant Maguire arrested Mims and asked Lacy about Mims’ phone and the vehicle she had used to bring him; Maguire said he could get a warrant but it would be lengthy and asked for consent to search the car.
Lacy opened the car; officers briefly looked through the interior and trunk and took nothing. Officers then requested D.G.’s phone number, called it, and (according to plaintiffs) an officer grabbed D.G.’s phone; officers also obtained a phone from Lacy’s purse after she reached in and handed it over (she alleges after threats of arrest/impound).
Plaintiffs brought §1983 claims for unlawful searches (vehicle, purse, Mims’ phone) and unlawful seizures (Mims’ phone, D.G.’s phone); they later abandoned Monell and unlawful‑detention claims.
The court credited plaintiffs’ version for summary‑judgment purposes, granted summary judgment to defendants on the unlawful search claims and on the seizure of Mims’ phone (exigent circumstances), granted summary judgment as to Sergeant Hutchings for D.G.’s phone, but denied summary judgment as to Sergeant Maguire for the alleged seizure of D.G.’s phone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of vehicle search	Lacy says search was coerced/not voluntary	Officers say Lacy consented after being told a warrant would take time	Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; SJ for defendants
Search of Lacy’s purse	Lacy alleges officers searched purse	Defendants deny any search of purse	No evidence of a search; SJ for defendants
Search of Mims’ phone contents	Plaintiffs assert officers searched phone without warrant	Defendants say no pre‑warrant search occurred	Plaintiff’s vague testimony insufficient to raise fact issue; SJ for defendants
Seizure of Mims’ phone	Lacy says phone taken without consent under threat	Defendants invoke exigent‑circumstances/probable cause + later warrant	Exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure; SJ for defendants
Seizure of D.G.’s phone	Plaintiffs say officers seized phone from an 8‑yr‑old without cause	Defendants say phone could be the pinging device and exigency justified brief seizure	No probable cause after officers verified D.G.’s number and phone rang; SJ denied as to Maguire, granted as to Hutchings
Qualified immunity (D.G.’s phone)	Right to be free from seizure of unrelated child’s phone was violated	Officers say no clearly established law put them on notice	Right was clearly established that probable cause was required; qualified immunity denied for Maguire

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (officers generally require a warrant to search digital data on a cell phone)
United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) (probable cause exists where fair probability that evidence will be found based on totality of circumstances)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (exigent‑circumstances balancing test for temporary restraints to prevent evidence destruction)
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (protecting incriminating evidence from removal/destruction can justify temporary intrusion)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (consent to search scope determined by what a reasonable person would have understood)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable under Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (limits on extending searches under plain‑view doctrine)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent circumstances may permit warrantless entry/seizure to prevent imminent destruction of evidence)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework — assess constitutional violation and whether right was clearly established)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity: courts have discretion in sequencing the two‑step inquiry)