Tammy Cameron v. Lauren Brown
16-55421
| 9th Cir. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tammy Cameron sued Detective Lauren Brown and Los Angeles County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging lack of probable cause for an arrest warrant.
- Initial incident report described the female perpetrator as approximately 5'1" and 135 lbs; Detective Brown’s database photo listed Cameron as about 5'7" and 110 lbs.
- Detective Brown later testified (years after the investigation) that a witness gave the name "Cameron," but that name did not appear in the original incident or supplemental reports and Brown could not identify which witness or when the name was given.
- A six-photo array used for identification displayed the words “tame cameron” beneath Cameron’s photo only; the witness initially said he was unsure and, after Brown told him to “do [his] best,” selected a photo.
- The photo identification occurred roughly ten months after the crime; the witness showed low certainty and his pre-array description did not match Cameron’s height.
- The Ninth Circuit held that, under the totality of the circumstances (Illinois v. Gates), a reasonable jury could find no probable cause; the grant of summary judgment to defendants was reversed and the case remanded to address qualified immunity and Monell liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether facts before the magistrate established probable cause for an arrest warrant | Cameron: physical description and ID were inconsistent and unreliable, so no probable cause | Defs: combined report, photo ID, and Brown’s investigative work supplied probable cause | Court: A reasonable jury could find no probable cause; summary judgment for defendants reversed |
| Reliability of the photo-array identification | Cameron: array was impermissibly suggestive (name under her photo) and procedures prompted selection, undermining reliability | Defs: signed advisement and identification suffice to support probable cause | Court: suggestiveness plus low indicia of reliability (delay, low certainty, description mismatch) could defeat probable cause |
| Credibility and evidentiary weight of Brown’s after-the-fact claim that a witness gave the name “Cameron” | Cameron: absence of contemporaneous record and Brown’s vague, belated testimony make this assertion unreliable | Defs: Brown’s testimony and declaration establish a witness provided the name | Court: A jury could disbelieve Brown’s post hoc account; lack of contemporaneous corroboration undermines probable cause finding |
| Whether summary judgment was proper and next steps (qualified immunity/Monell) | Cameron: disputed material facts preclude summary judgment; immunity and municipal liability require further proceedings | Defs: sought summary judgment on probable cause and related defenses | Court: reversed summary judgment on probable cause and remanded to address qualified immunity and Monell issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Garcia v. County of Riverside, 817 F.3d 635 (height/description discrepancies can be a red flag for identification)
- Grant v. City of Long Beach, 315 F.3d 1081 (photo-array suggestiveness and indicia-of-reliability framework)
- People v. Carlos, 138 Cal. App. 4th 907 (name-similarity in identification contexts can create suggestiveness)