Michelle Cameron v. Michelle Craig
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7563
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cameron dated Buether, shared finances, and used his credit card; they were never married but intermingled finances and accounts.
- Buether obtained an ex parte restraining/kick-out order during their relationship; Cameron was removed from the home and later moved out.
- Buether filed a criminal complaint accusing an unknown suspect of credit-card fraud; Overstock.com confirmed Cameron’s address and card use.
- Detective Craig investigated the case, interviewing Buether and reviewing shipping records tying purchases to Cameron; she allegedly used Buether’s card without authorization.
- On Dec 15, 2008, Craig obtained a warrant to search Cameron’s apartment for the purchased items based on probable-cause facts; the raid occurred on Dec 18, 2008, with officers armed and Cameron’s children present.
- Cameron was arrested; charges were later dismissed; Cameron sued for Fourth Amendment violations and state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment on unlawful-search/unlawful-arrest claims, but not on excessive-force or conspiracy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the search warrant | Cameron argues warrant lacked complete exculpatory information. | Craig's affidavit showed probable cause based on unauthorized card use and evidence from Overstock. | Warrant facially valid; probable cause supported. |
| Probable cause for Cameron’s arrest | Arrest lacked probable cause given disputed facts about permission to use the card. | Totality of circumstances supported probable cause to believe Cameron used Buether’s card without authorization. | Arrest supported by probable cause. |
| Excessive force and qualified immunity | SWAT-like entry with guns drawn and physical force could be excessive; factual disputes exist. | Force reasonable given circumstances; qualified immunity may apply. | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; jury to decide; qualified immunity not resolved on record. |
| Conspiracy to violate Fourth Amendment rights | Craig and Buether conspired to obtain an invalid warrant or to execute it in a coercive manner. | No underlying Fourth Amendment violation for conspiracy to obtain invalid warrant; some conspiracy claims may involve separate excessive-force conduct. | Conspiracy to invalidly obtain warrant rejected; conspiracy to use excessive force goes to trial. |
| Municipal liability for excessive force | County liable under Monell for policies/customs causing excessive force. | No identified County policy or custom; federal Monell liability rejected. | No Monell liability for federal excessive-force claim; state-law potential liability under California law acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause depends on totality of circumstances)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause standard; objective test)
- United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1985) (probable cause for search warrants)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (purpose of the Fourth Amendment is objective; subjective motives irrelevant)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (deliberate falsity or material omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (two-step qualified-immunity framework for excessive-force cases)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (allowing district courts to address second step first when dispositive)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force; factors include severity of the crime, threat, and resistance/fleeing)