Liberal v. Estrada
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 957
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kesner Liberal was stopped at ~1:40 a.m. on El Camino Real by Officer Estrada for suspected tinted windows or unlawful conduct; windows were described as front ones rolled down, rear tinted.
- Liberal and two passengers—Hamilton (African-American) and Martinez (Mexican-American)—were detained; Liberal was pulled from his car, handcuffed, and held for ~25–30 minutes while other officers arrived.
- A recording captured Estrada directing and berating Liberal and Martinez, with partial Mirandization of Liberal and a threat-laden tone from Estrada.
- A search of Liberal's car occurred after Liberal consented to identify the vehicle; the car contained only a lawfully possessed pellet handgun.
- Six officers participated in the stop/search sequence; multiple checks of Liberal’s license and plate were performed, and a lengthy detention followed before any citation or arrest occurred.
- Liberal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law; the district court denied some immunity defenses and granted partial summary judgment for others; the officers appeal the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion | Liberal claims no legal basis for stop; Estrada allegedly acted on a mistaken fact regarding tinted windows. | Estrada asserts reasonable suspicion due to the alleged tinted front windows and pursuit behavior. | Qualified immunity denied for Estrada; stop deemed unlawful under clearly established law. |
| Whether the use of force during removal from the vehicle was reasonable | Excessive force violated Fourth Amendment and exceeded lawful scope. | Officers acted to ensure safety during a traffic stop. | Not entitled to qualified immunity; force deemed unreasonable under Fourth Amendment. |
| Whether the detention duration was unreasonably long | 45-minute detention without probable cause violated rights. | Detention extended due to ongoing checks and suspicions of evasion. | Length of detention was unreasonable; denial of qualified immunity affirmed. |
| Whether the consent to search was voluntary; Fourth Amendment violation | Consent coerced by handcuffing, presence of seven officers, and control of vehicle. | Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Consent not voluntary; the search unconstitutional; denial of immunity affirmed. |
| Whether California Government Code § 820.2 creates immunity from suit and is appealable | § 820.2 provides immunity from suit; denial should be appealable. | § 820.2 is a defense to liability, not immunity from suit; no immediate appealable final order. | The district court's denial of § 820.2 immunity is a final appealable decision; state-law issues remain non-appealable for this interlocutory appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (good faith immunity framework for actions later upheld or denied)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-prong framework for qualified immunity (often chosen prong first))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies ordering of prongs in qualified immunity analysis)
- Torres-Sanchez v. United States, 83 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 1996) (detention reasonableness and diligence of investigation)
- Roy v. United States, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent to search factors)
- United States v. Dorais, 241 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (reasonable mistaken belief not automatically illegal)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness in excessive force analysis)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983) (protective searches for weapons during seizure)