Rustin Smith v. City & County of Honolulu
887 F.3d 944
9th Cir.2018Background
- On April 12, 2011 Honolulu police conducted a controlled delivery to Smith's home after a UPS package tested presumptively positive for MDPV; Smith was arrested without a warrant after accepting the package.
- Police executed controlled buys at two stores owned by Smith and seized property under Hawaii forfeiture law; a probable-cause application was sworn the day of arrest but a judicial determination was not signed until ~43 hours later (within 48 hours).
- Smith was informed of his rights, invoked counsel, gave no statement, and was released after about 47 hours; he was never prosecuted on the arrest-related charges.
- Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unreasonable post-arrest detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment; state-law claims were dismissed earlier and are not before the court.
- At trial the jury found for the City; Smith moved post-trial for JMOL or a new trial (Rule 59); the district court denied relief.
- On appeal Smith challenged the denial of the new-trial motion, the exclusion of three proposed jury instructions, alleged trial counsel/witness misconduct, and the dismissal of a threatening juror. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention was unreasonably prolonged despite judicial determination within 48 hours | Smith: 43–47 hour detention was unreasonable; investigation during detention showed delay to gather evidence/animus | City: Judicial probable-cause determination occurred within 48 hours; administrative delay not per se unreasonable; investigation was legitimate and did not add to probable cause | Court: Affirmed — because determination was within 48 hours and record did not show improper motive or delay-for-evidence, denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether district court erred by refusing instruction on unreasonable seizure of property | Smith: Complaint put City on notice of property seizure constitutional claim; instruction was warranted | City: Complaint did not plead a federal property-seizure claim; defendant prejudiced if new theory allowed after discovery | Court: Affirmed — complaint did not fairly plead a §1983 property-seizure claim, so instruction properly rejected |
| Whether instruction that failure to admit to bail violated state law/due process should have been given | Smith: Hawaii law gives a right to prompt bail; instruction relevant to liberty interest | City: State-law claims were dismissed; §1983 trial cannot include pure state-law claims; any state-law liberty interest not shown to change outcome | Court: Affirmed — state-law claim not cognizable in §1983; any error harmless given jury's finding on probable-cause promptness |
| Whether juror dismissal and alleged juror/witness/counsel misconduct required new trial | Smith: Post-trial hearsay from dismissed juror and asserted improper statements warrant new trial | City: Dismissal for threatening behavior was proper; hearsay juror statements are barred by Rule 606(b); alleged counsel/witness remarks not plain error | Court: Affirmed — dismissal (with parties’ agreement) upheld as not motivated by merits; hearsay barred; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (warrantless arrests require a prompt judicial probable-cause determination)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (generally reasonable if judicial determination occurs within 48 hours; plaintiff bears burden to show unreasonable delay)
- Kanekoa v. City & County of Honolulu, 879 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1989) (police may continue investigation of a legally detained suspect, but may not arrest first and then investigate to obtain probable cause)
- United States v. Symington, 195 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court best positioned to assess jurors’ ability to continue deliberations; juror dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)