Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12395
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- LVMPD responded to a 911 tip about two white males; officers targeted a residence belonging to Jesus Sandoval and Adriana Rodriguez, believing burglars were present.
- Officers entered the yard and opened doors/windows; they observed three youths inside who did not match the tip’s description in race, number, or age.
- Dunn entered the home through a sliding glass door while Roberts remained outside and directed the others; both officers issued commands.
- Hazel, the family dog, was shot as officers moved the youths outside and handcuffed them; Henry tried to place the dog away, but was prevented.
- Sandoval (father) and his eleven-year-old daughter Kenya witnessed events; Sandoval was detained for 25–30 minutes; Hazel died soon after; no charges were filed against the Sandovals.
- The Sandovals sued LVMPD and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity and Nevada discretionary-function immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dunn’s entry violated the Fourth Amendment. | Sandoval | Dunn (LVMPD)—exigent circumstances or emergency aid justified entry | Not entitled to qualified immunity; entry violates Fourth Amendment absent exigency or emergency aid with probable cause. |
| Whether the force used against the youths and Sandoval was excessive under the Fourth Amendment. | Sandoval | Officers acted to control a potential burglary scene and for officer safety | Not entitled to qualified immunity; force was not reasonable under Graham balancing. |
| Whether familial association rights were violated by separation and treatment of Sandoval and Henry. | Sandoval family | Agency action justified by investigation | No due-process violation; dog shooting and brief separation do not constitute a cognizable familial-right deprivation. |
| Whether the Equal Protection Clause was violated by racial/ethnic profiling. | Sandoval | No evidence of racially discriminatory intent | Affirmed grant of summary judgment on equal protection. |
| Whether Nevada discretionary-function immunity shielded the officers from state-law claims. | Sandoval | Immunity applies to discretionary actions | District court erred; genuine issues of material fact exist; reverse as to discretionary immunity for certain state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless home entry requires probable cause and exigent circumstances or emergency)
- United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010) (probable cause/an exigency framework in home entries)
- Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2002) (entry into home requires warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances)
- Bailey v. Newland, 263 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2001) (clearly established rule that warrantless dwelling entry requires probable cause and exigency)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency aid/entry standards for imminent threat scenarios)
- Snipe v. United States, 515 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2008) (officer safety considerations under emergency exception)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S. Ct. 989 (2012) (reasonableness of on-scene assessment without hindsight)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (U.S. 2010) (emergency adequacy for warrantless entry when immediate danger exists)