Rosenbaum v. Washoe County
654 F.3d 1001
9th Cir.2011Background
- Rosenbaum sold free KOZZ tickets at the Nevada State Fair with his eight-year-old and four-year-old children present.
- Deputy Forbus arrested Rosenbaum after learning witnesses bought tickets Rosenbaum allegedly sold for $5 each.
- Rosenbaum wore a KOZZ logo shirt; officers escorted his children to their mother, informing them the conduct was wrong and that Rosenbaum would go to jail.
- Rosenbaum faced felony charges for abuse/neglect of a child and for obtaining money by false pretenses; he was released on bail the next day.
- District court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity, relying on an obscure Nevada statute (205.415) to justify the arrest; the statute had no published authority and was discovered after the arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause to arrest Rosenbaum? | Rosenbaum lacked probable cause; no crime was proven. | Forbus reasonably believed there was probable cause under potential statutes. | No probable cause; arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Is the later-found statute sufficient to support qualified immunity? | Unknown statute cannot justify retroactive probable cause. | Statutory ambiguity could establish probable cause. | Not sufficient; cannot rely on an obscure, post hoc statute. |
| Does the conduct of officers violate the substantive due process right to family integrity? | Handcuffing and remarks to children infringed family integrity. | Conduct did not shock the conscience; not a constitutional violation. | No violation of substantive due process right to family integrity. |
| Was the right to be free from unlawful arrest clearly established so immunity did not apply? | Arrest lacked probable cause; clearly established rights were violated. | Law was ambiguous due to post-arrest statute discovery. | Law was not clearly established; qualified immunity reversed for unlawful arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988) (unlawful arrest requires probable cause for Fourth Amendment claim; possible immunity if probable cause existed nonetheless)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (retrospective probable cause analysis allowed; offense need not be same as stated at arrest)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (qualified immunity depends on objective reasonableness of official's conduct)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (two-prong qualified immunity analysis; clearly established law must be known)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies order of prongs in qualified immunity analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step framework for qualified immunity (later supplanted in practice))
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasonable belief of probable cause governs immunity when facts are disputed)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (family integrity rights; conduct must shock conscience to violate)
- Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1985) (recognition of fundamental liberty interest in familial companionship)