Matthew Neidermeyer v. Michael Caldwell
16-55233
| 9th Cir. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- CHP Officer Caldwell stopped Neidermeyer after video showed the car drift within its lane and make a quick, unsafe lane change.
- During the stop Caldwell, trained as a Drug Recognition Expert, observed a delayed eye response on a nystagmus test and unusual, escalating behavior by Neidermeyer (rapid speech, paranoia, atypical commentary, throwing himself on the ground).
- Neidermeyer was arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled substance; he later claimed the arrest was unlawful, that the frisk was unlawful, and brought malicious prosecution claims.
- The prosecutor who filed charges reviewed the arrest video and testified he exercised independent judgment in filing charges.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Officer Caldwell on all claims; the Ninth Circuit majority affirmed on stop, arrest (qualified immunity), malicious prosecution, and denial of leave to amend for a frisk claim.
- A concurring/dissenting judge would have reversed as to the arrest and the denial of leave to amend the frisk claim, finding disputed facts and potential prejudice considerations warrant remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of investigatory stop | Stop was unlawful; driving did not justify suspicion of criminal activity | Video shows drifting and unsafe lane change giving reasonable suspicion for a stop | Stop was lawful; summary judgment for Caldwell affirmed |
| Lawfulness of arrest / probable cause (and qualified immunity) | Arrest lacked probable cause — driving brief and isolated; behavior could be fear response to police conduct | Officer had objective facts (driving, delayed eye response, bizarre/paranoid behavior, DRE training) supporting probable cause; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity granted; summary judgment for Caldwell affirmed |
| Malicious prosecution | Charges were based on false/misleading police reports | Prosecutor exercised independent judgment after reviewing video; presumption shields officers | Summary judgment for Caldwell affirmed (presumption unrebutted) |
| Denial of leave to amend to add unlawful frisk claim | Amendment should be allowed; issue litigated in deposition and at summary judgment; denial prejudices plaintiff | Plaintiff delayed unduly; amendment after scheduling deadline prejudices defense and lacked good cause | Denial of leave to amend affirmed (district court did not abuse discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances reasonable-suspicion and DUI context)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (use totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health, 632 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff bears burden to show right was clearly established)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999) (clearly established law standard for Fourth Amendment claims)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (order of qualified immunity inquiry and dispositive nature of clearly-established-right question)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent irrelevant to Fourth Amendment seizure analysis)
- United States v. Magallon-Lopez, 817 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2016) (objective-reasonableness focus in Fourth Amendment review)
- Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1986) (presumption of prosecutor's independent judgment protects officers from malicious prosecution suits)
- Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008) (malicious prosecution elements and prosecutor independence)
- Newman v. County of Orange, 457 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2006) (conflicting accounts insufficient to rebut presumption of independent prosecutorial judgment)
- In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 16(b) good-cause standard for post-deadline amendments)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence as primary factor for Rule 16(b) good cause)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (questioning by officers permissible during investigatory stops)
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (officers may not disregard facts that tend to dissipate probable cause)
- Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2006) (probable cause evaluated under totality of circumstances)