Merritt Sharp, III v. County of Orange
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18148
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deputies executed arrest warrants for Merritt L. Sharp IV at his parents’ home after radio reports of a fleeing white male in a black shirt and tan pants; Sharp IV had a probation condition allowing searches.
- Deputies Anderson and Flores, who had not seen a photo, encountered Merritt L. Sharp III (father) in a light blue shirt; they ordered him down, arrested him at gunpoint, handcuffed him, searched his person, and placed him in a patrol car.
- After other deputies discovered the mistake and learned Sharp III was not the warrant subject, they nonetheless kept him handcuffed and detained in the patrol car for ~20 more minutes while searching the house; Carol Sharp was removed from the home and the deputies searched bedrooms, drawers, and cabinets.
- Sharp III alleges Fourth Amendment claims (unlawful seizure, search incident to arrest, excessive force, home search) and a First Amendment retaliation claim for continued detention because he was “argumentative”; Carol alleged retaliation but waived on appeal.
- District court denied deputies’ claims of qualified immunity and state-law immunities; Ninth Circuit affirmed denial as to Sharp III’s retaliation claim and state-law immunities, but reversed (granted qualified immunity) on several Fourth Amendment claims and Carol’s retaliation claim, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial arrest (mistaken identity) | Sharp III: arrest was unreasonable; deputies lacked probable cause to arrest him | Deputies: dynamic scene, fleeing suspect description, reasonable mistake of identity justifies arrest | Arrest unconstitutional but not "clearly established" — qualified immunity granted for initial arrest |
| Continued detention in patrol car after mistake | Sharp III: detention unlawful; Summers inapplicable to arrest warrants; detention unconstitutional | Deputies: Summers permits categorical detention of occupants while executing warrant; applies to arrest warrants | Continued detention unconstitutional but not "clearly established" (legal ambiguity on Summers’ scope) — qualified immunity granted |
| Use of force and search of person incident to arrest | Sharp III: force (arm yank, tight cuffs) and search unlawful as incident to an unlawful arrest | Deputies: force/search subject to excessive-force and search-incident-to-arrest doctrines; no controlling precedent putting them on notice | Constitutional violations found factually, but not clearly established by specific precedent — qualified immunity granted for force and person search |
| Search of home and scope (drawers/cabinets) | Plaintiffs: entry/search unreasonable and exceeded scope for finding Sharp IV | Deputies: relied on official records that Sharp IV resided there and on Sharp IV’s probation search condition authorizing broad suspicionless searches | Entry reasonable; scope justified by probation condition and existing precedent — qualified immunity granted for home-search claim |
| First Amendment retaliation (continued detention for being "argumentative") | Sharp III: detention continued because he complained — Deputy Anderson’s comment shows but-for causation | Deputies: detention was for investigative/security reasons, not speech | Retaliation established and clearly proscribed by existing Ninth Circuit precedent — qualified immunity denied as to Sharp III’s retaliation claim |
| State-law immunities (Cal. Gov. Code §820.2, §821.6; Cal. Gov. Code §43.55(a); Cal. Penal Code §847) | Plaintiffs: state claims viable; immunities inapplicable because conduct unreasonable or outside scope | Deputies: assert discretionary/prosecutorial/arrest-warrant/false-arrest immunities | Discretionary and prosecutorial immunities inapplicable as matter of law; arrest-warrant and false-arrest immunities inapplicable because deputies acted unreasonably — denials affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (Sup. Ct.) (mistaken-identity arrests are valid if officers had reasonable belief)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (Sup. Ct.) (search warrants carry categorical authority to detain occupants during execution)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (Sup. Ct.) (arrest warrants differ from search warrants for third-party home entry)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct.) (search incident to a lawful custodial arrest)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (Sup. Ct.) (probation conditions can diminish privacy expectations; reasonable suspicion may suffice)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (Sup. Ct.) (no individualized suspicion required to search parolee who accepted search condition)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Sup. Ct.) (officers may enter a home to execute an arrest warrant when they reasonably believe the suspect is inside)
- Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384 (9th Cir.) (reasonableness standard for mistaken-identity arrests)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified-immunity rule requires precedent sufficiently analogous to put officers on notice)