663 F.3d 1071
9th Cir.2011Background
- Rosenbaum was arrested outside the Nevada State Fair for selling free promotional KOZZ tickets and was later released on bail; he wore a KOZZ-logo shirt and had two children present.
- Three witnesses testified Rosenbaum sold tickets for a price of $5 each; KOZZ personnel and a deputy determined he was unauthorized to sell the tickets for profit.
- Rosenbaum was booked on charges including abuse, neglect or endangerment of a child and obtaining money by false pretenses; ultimately only one felony count was pursued and later dropped.
- Forbus escorted Rosenbaum’s two children to their mother, and warned them that their father had done something wrong and would go to jail; the children were four and eight years old.
- The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, but the district court relied on an ambiguously discovered statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.415) that was not publicly known at the time of arrest; claims for family integrity remained for trial.
- This court reverses the district court on the unlawful arrest claim (no probable cause) but affirms on the family integrity claim (no constitutional violation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and was not protected by qualified immunity | Rosenbaum asserts no probable cause; officers violated rights | Forbus reasonably believed probable cause under statutes including § 205.415 | Unlawful arrest violated Fourth Amendment; no probable cause; qualified immunity denied for arrest issue |
| Whether the right to family integrity was violated and whether qualified immunity applies | Rosenbaum and children allege disruption of familial integrity | Officers' conduct did not shock conscience; no constitutional violation | Right to family integrity not violated; qualified immunity issues not necessary to decide for this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Borunda v. Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988) (established unlawful arrest requires probable cause for Fourth Amendment claim)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause analyzed against applicable law at time of arrest)
- Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406 (9th Cir. 2010) (probable cause requires facts and law to support offense-specific basis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (clearly established law; qualified immunity hinges on reasonable belief)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis (now modified))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies the sequence of the qualified immunity inquiry)
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasonable belief of probable cause evaluated for immunity)
- Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1985) (recognized right to familial companionship as a substantive due process interest)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (illustrative of family-integrity due process claims)