731 F.3d 1009
9th Cir.2013Background
- Nickerson was arrested in the Presidio of San Francisco for three Class B misdemeanors: DUI under 36 C.F.R. § 1004.23(a)(1), BAC over 0.08% under § 1004.23(a)(2), and failure to maintain control under § 1004.22(b)(1).
- A motion-sensitive surveillance camera in Nickerson’s holding cell recorded her during the booking process, including her use of the toilet; there was no warning sign or visible camera marker.
- The government proffered justifications for videotaping detainees in holding cells, including safety, medical monitoring, and deterrence of abuse.
- The Magistrate Judge dismissed the charges after concluding the tape shockingly invaded privacy without a proffered justification; the government appealed.
- The District Court reinstated the charges, ruling the lack of nexus between the videotaping and prosecution did not require dismissal.
- Nickerson challenged the dismissal on grounds of the Speedy Trial Act applicability to Class B misdemeanors and on grounds of government misconduct, among other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Speedy Trial Act apply to Class B misdemeanors? | Nickerson | Nickerson | No; §3161(d)(2) does not apply to Class B misdemeanors. |
| Should the charges be dismissed for outrageous government conduct in videotaping? | Nickerson | Nickerson | No; no nexus shown between conduct and the prosecution; no dismissal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1952) (due process/shocks the conscience doctrine applies to dismissal)
- United States v. Boyd, 214 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (Speedy Trial Act and petty offenses context)
- United States v. Talbot, 51 F.3d 183 (9th Cir. 1995) (Speedy Trial Act applicability to misdemeanors)
- United States v. Baker, 641 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1981) (Speedy Trial Act scope for misdemeanors)
- United States v. Sued-Jimenez, 275 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (context on speedy-trial and misdemeanor treatment)
- United States v. Sharpton, 252 F.3d 536 (1st Cir. 2001) (Speedy Trial Act exclusions for petty offenses)