69 Cal.App.5th 867
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Officers Knox and Garrett, in plain clothes and an unmarked SUV, went to Murchison's rural property after learning he was a convicted felon; they did not obtain a warrant.
- The officers spotted an unloaded bolt‑action rifle on a bench inside the curtilage; Knox walked quickly toward the rifle without first identifying himself as police (disputed whether he had already entered curtilage).
- Murchison, talking on 911 and believing he was being robbed, ran toward the rifle; Knox and Garrett ran to intercept him.
- Knox allegedly aimed his service weapon within inches of Murchison's head and shouted; within 1–2 seconds Garrett tackled Murchison from behind, they forced him to the ground and handcuffed him. Murchison later complained of physical and psychological injuries.
- The trial court granted defendants' summary judgment (finding exigent circumstances, objective reasonableness, and qualified immunity). The Court of Appeal reversed in part and remanded, holding triable issues exist on unlawful search, excessive force, and related state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry / unlawful search (§1983) | Knox entered curtilage without a warrant and thus the entry was presumptively unreasonable; any exigency was created by officers' conduct. | Entry excused by exigent‑circumstances because Murchison ran toward the rifle and officers reasonably feared for safety. | Reversed summary judgment: triable fact whether Knox entered curtilage before exigency arose; if so, exigency exception fails. |
| Excessive force (§1983) | Tackling and forcing Murchison face‑down seconds after firing a gun at him was unreasonable, especially because officers concealed identity and may have created the situation. | Use of force was objectively reasonable to prevent Murchison from obtaining a rifle and threatening officers. | Reversed summary judgment: triable issues exist about whether officers' conduct created urgency, failure to identify themselves, and whether Murchison was resisting. |
| Qualified immunity | Officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment limits on curtilage entry and on force when they concealed ID and tackled a non‑resisting person. | Officers reasonably believed exigency justified entry and force; thus they are entitled to qualified immunity. | Not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law on record presented; factual disputes must be resolved by jury. |
| State claims (Bane Act, battery by peace officer, assault) | State claims survive because underlying constitutional violations (search, excessive force) are triable; specific intent/reckless disregard for Bane Act can be found. | State claims fail if no constitutional violation or force was reasonable. | Reversed summary judgment as to Bane Act, battery, and assault against Knox and Garrett; triable issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use‑of‑force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing test)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (U.S. 2018) (entry into curtilage to gather evidence is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (exigent‑circumstances exception not available when officers create exigency by violating Fourth Amendment)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (exigency doctrine permits warrantless action when immediate need to protect life or prevent serious injury)
- United States v. Perea‑Rey, 680 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2012) (driveway/carport part of curtilage; entry into curtilage seeking evidence is a search)
- United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (officers who create exigency by unauthorized presence cannot rely on exigent‑circumstances exception)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (less‑than‑deadly force still governed by Graham balancing)