2016 CO 13
Colo.2016Background
- Sebastian, a passenger in a car stopped by Douglas County deputies, was seated with hands up when two youths fled the vehicle and jumped a fence.
- Deputy Black deployed a K-9 to pursue the fleeing youths, but the dog turned back toward Sebastian and attacked him after the youths escaped over the fence.
- Sebastian filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment seizure; the County defendants moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed for failure to respond.
- Sebastian moved for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) arguing excusable neglect; Goodman factors required consideration of excusable neglect, meritorious claim, and equity.
- The trial court denied the Rule 60(b)(1) motion; the Colorado Court of Appeals remanded for a full Goodman analysis, then affirmed on remand; certiorari was granted to review the meritorious-claim issue.
- The issue before the Colorado Supreme Court was whether Sebastian alleged a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim of intentional seizure under Brower v. Inyo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sebastian alleged a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim | Sebastian alleges Deputy Black intentionally seized him when the K-9 attacked him after pursuit. | Sebastian's amended complaint asserts only legal conclusions and not an actionable intentional seizure. | Yes, he failed to allege a meritorious claim; the court affirmed. |
| Standard of review for the second Goodman factor | Sebastian contends de novo review is appropriate for whether a meritorious claim is pleaded. | The standard is an abuse-of-discretion review of the trial court's ruling on the motion. | The court did not resolve the standard of review; it held, under any standard, Sebastian failed to plead a meritorious claim. |
| Whether the appellate space/‘space’ analysis applies to K-9 seizures | Sebastian relied on a spatial notion that the dog could seize anyone in the release space. | The appellate court adopted a space-based rule that an officer intends to seize anyone within the released space. | The majority declined to adopt the space-based rule; Sebastian did not plead an actionable intentional seizure under Brower. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (seizure occurs when government intentionally uses an instrumentality to terminate movement; may include unintended targets)
- Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1971) (example of detention in Fourth Amendment context; requires willful detention)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1987) (relevant to scope of warrants and overbreadth in searches)
- Vathekan v. Prince George's County, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998) (police dog cannot discriminate; intent evaluated to seize if dog deployed to find and bite)