Sialoi v. City of San Diego
3:11-cv-02280
S.D. Cal.May 1, 2017Background
- On Oct. 2, 2010 police responded to a “hot call” reporting two men with guns at a San Diego apartment complex where Plaintiffs were holding a family barbecue; officers encountered multiple family members and several individuals holding objects that appeared to be guns.
- Three teenage males were ordered to the ground; officers later discovered the items were toys (a paintball gun and a pipe with a scope). Over 25 officers were at the scene; family members were detained, many handcuffed, and the apartment was entered without a warrant by Sgt. Sluss.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches/seizures, excessive force) and state law; defendants include the City and several officers.
- At trial the jury found no unreasonable search/seizure of most plaintiffs but concluded Sgt. Sluss unreasonably entered the residences of two plaintiffs without a warrant. The Court reserved on pre-verdict JMOLs and plaintiffs/defendants renewed Rule 50(b) motions after verdict.
- The Court addressed four renewed JMOL issues: qualified immunity for Sgt. Sluss re: warrantless entry; lawfulness of seizures/detentions; lawfulness of pat-downs (frisks); and lawfulness of arrests/probable cause for four arrested plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for warrantless entry/protective sweep | Sluss violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by entering apartment absent exigency or warrant | Sluss reasonably conducted a safety check/protective sweep; law unsettled; probable cause/arrests justified entry | Denied — court finds Sluss violated Fourth Amendment and right was clearly established; Buie inapplicable to justify entry |
| Lawfulness of seizures/detentions of moving plaintiffs | Detentions lacked reasonable suspicion and continued handcuffing after searches was excessive | Officers had reasonable suspicion from a hot-call, matching descriptions, apparent weapons, movement in/out of apartment; continued detention tailored to safety/search needs | Denied — substantial evidence supported jury verdict that detentions were reasonable and tailored to safety/search objectives |
| Lawfulness of pat-downs (frisks) | Frisks were unlawful because officers lacked reasonable basis to believe remaining family members hid the (second) shotgun | Officers reasonably suspected additional, concealable weapons (not only the shotgun) given circumstances | Denied — record supported jury finding that frisks were reasonable under Terry given officer safety concerns |
| Lawfulness of arrests/probable cause for four arrested plaintiffs | Arrests were unlawful; officers lacked probable cause when they handcuffed/placed teens in patrol cars before confirming weapons were real | Probable cause exists from totality (hot-call, matching descriptions, apparent weapons, conduct); securing suspects before identifying weapons was reasonable for safety | Denied — court finds probable cause existed to effect arrests until officers discovered toys; three teens were arrested as a matter of law, Junior’s detention not necessarily an arrest as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (U.S. 2015) (qualified immunity standard; clearly established law inquiry)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (searches of homes without warrants presumptively unreasonable)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (protective sweep doctrine applies only after lawful entry)
- Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 756 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (warrantless home entry unreasonable absent exigency or emergency-aid exception)
- Sialoi v. City of San Diego, 823 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2016) (appellate treatment of facts; Buie inapplicable; clearly established law on warrantless entries)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (standard for JMOL/review of jury verdict)