*1 Public Levine, Esq., California Ellen Emry; By DAWSON; David L. Jerri Francisco, CA, Commission, San Utilities Shelly Sogga, Foltz; indi N. ron for Petitioners/Intervenor. Plaintiffs-Appellants, viduals, Schooler, Nat’I. Cable Esq., S. Michael Lev, Inc., Attor- Assn., A. Sean Television Drye Aamoth, Kelley Esq., J.
ney, Robert municipal SEATTLE, cor OF CITY Kelley, Esq., LLP, L. Jodie & Warren Kerlikowske, of poration; Gil Mills, Esq., LLP, E. David Block & Jenner Police, official in his Chief Albertson, L. Law- David Dow, Lohnes & Washington; County, King capacity; Austin, LLP, Jonathan son, Sidley Esq., Director, Plough, Seattle- L. Alonzo Dempsey, Nadler, & Squire Sanders Jacob County Department King Public Berlin Fleming, Swidler LLP, Michael W. Perry capacity; Health, in his official LLP, Friedman, Andrew G. Shereff In Environmental Lee, Health Klindera, Esq., Wi- McBride, Esq., Eve J. County Seattle-King II, vestigator LLP, Washington, Fielding & ley Rein Health, his Department Public DC, Intervenors. capacity; Bill individual official Section, Depart- In Chief, U.S. Appellate Lasby, and Environmental Health Carr, County Justice, Esq., Seattle-King M. IV, James vestigator ment Counsel, Health, Communications in his Federal Public Department General Division, Washing- Commission, capacity, De Litigation official and individual DC, ton, Respondent. fendants-Appellees. 03-35858.
No. Appeals, Court of States United Circuit. Ninth ’SCANNLAIN, CUDAHY,* Before 17, 2005. Feb. Argued and Submitted THOMAS, Judges. Circuit 24, 2006. Filed Jan. ORDER Supreme Court’s with the accordance & Telecomms. Cable National decision — Servs., U.S. X Internet v. Brand
Ass’n L.Ed.2d 820
-, Com-
(2005), Communications the Federal AF- declaratory ruling is
mission’s
FIRMED.
* Circuit, designation. sitting by Cudahy, D. Senior Richard Honorable Judge for the Seventh Circuit United States *2 Boyle, Se- Vera, M. Margaret F.
Jose WA, attle, plaintiffs-appellants. Deputy Gallagher, Senior Linda M. Carr, L. Attorney, Heather Prosecuting *3 Seattle, Washing- Cooper, Frey Stafford ton, defendants-appellees. for GOULD, B.FLETCHER, Before: KING,* District Judges, and Circuit Judge.
GOULD, Judge: Circuit Dawson, Plaintiffs-Appellants Jerri L. Foltz, Shelly N. Byron Emry, David (Plaintiffs) the district appeal Sogga motion denying them orders court’s summary granting summary judgment Alonzo to the defendants: judgment Lee, Perry King Coun- Lasby, Plough, Bill Kerlikowske, City of Se- and the ty, Gil (Defendants), extinguishing thereby attle Plain- § 1983 claims.1 42 U.S.C. tenants of times were pertinent tiffs health by public inspected boardinghouses police. secured officials Lee at Lasby, Plough, Defendants of the Se- employees times pertinent were Public Department of County attle-King Kerlikowske Defendant Health. City of Seattle for the of Police Chief this case. underlying during the events court the district argue Plaintiffs motions Defendants’ by granting erred Plaintiffs are and that summary judgment * matter, agree material that the general we King, United P. Senior Samuel The Honorable However, because Judge dispute. of Ha- for the District not in States District are facts waii, designation. sitting by granted mo- Defendants' district court tions, light most the facts in court we consider came before district 1. This matter Defen- and of there is of Plaintiffs to the on cross-motions extent Plaintiffs favorable judgment. seeking summary On dants each States dispute. See United factual they argue appeal, this Cir.2003). Tacoma, 332 F.3d undisputed As prevail facts. on entitled judgment entitled as a matter of law opinion, rodents, conditions these invited underlying because the search rats, this case particularly to infest the boarding- Amendment; the Fourth violated because houses. professional his judgment, the King County’s public failure teach its rotting food in both houses would attract inspectors health a constitutionally proper rats, debris, piles both inside procedure to obtain and execute search houses, and outside provided sites in allegedly warrants caused the unconstitu- which could nest. Although Cop- search; because, search, tional during the pock could not determine whether Plaintiffs were detained by po- the Seattle properties were then infested because lice unreasonably and thus unconstitution- rats are nocturnal inspected and he *4 ally; the City and because of Seattle’s properties during day, the Coppock con- custom or policy detaining a building’s “[tjhese cluded that two properties were occupants pending a police search caused the examples worst of rodent and insect the allegedly unconstitutional detention. infestation and rodent harborage I had Further, Plaintiffs argue they that if are ever seen in a setting.” residential Dur- judgment entitled to aas matter of ing inspection, the building the manager, law, is a genuine there issue of material Ade, Todd appeared who drunk to Cop- fact preclude that would summary judg- pock, bragged that operation his of these ment whether their detention pending boardinghouses money.” was “free Con- Finally, was reasonable. cerned that the tenants living were in contend that the district court abused its filthy and potentially unhealthy condi- in awarding discretion costs to Defendants. tions, Coppock reported his observations jurisdiction We have under 28 U.S.C. Watson, and to views an Sandra Assistant § and we affirm. it Attorney; was the first time that he had ever report. made such a
I Watson verified that Coppock was a li- 8, 1999, August Terminix, On pest exterminator, pest censed that he had in- control company, dispatched Cop- Richard spected boardinghouses Terminix, the pock inspect two boardinghous- to and that allegations his were based on es, located at 6418 and 6420 Av- personal observations. organized Watson NE, enue for ants and fleas. Coppock a meeting representatives with from the inspected all of occupied the boarders’ City of King Seattle and County agencies rooms, kitchens, basements, as jurisdiction that had over city and well as several sheds and a shack located county and code ordinance violations de- backyards. During inspection, his scribed Coppock, including the Seattle- fleas, Coppock ants, observed maggots, King County Department of Public Health sal bugs, earwigs, roaches, German rat (DPH). Two DPH Health and Environ- urine, and rat throughout feces both mental Investigators, Lasby Bill Perry and He noted that many houses. of the doors Lee, responded to Coppock’s complaint by inside the boardinghouses fit loosely too visiting the properties requesting and Mr. and, result, their frames as a rats or permission Ade’s to inspect them. Mr. could pests freely pass from room enter, Ade refused Lasby to let and Lee Coppock room. also rotting observed and Ade told food, “get them to a search war- wrappers, used food garbage, and they rant” if piles wanted to search dirty clothing prop- either many inside of the erty. inside, boarders’ rooms. In Unable to search backyards, Lasby Cop- pock wood, piles junk, saw proceeded an Lee au- examine the exterior of tomobile raised on Coppock’s blocks. In boardinghouses. the two Although Lasby during staff’ safety of [DPH] protect damage structural Lee observed were and the de- search. DPH “accumulated houses, as well
both resist might provid- that Ade overgrowth concerned bags and plastic bris to admit neither they search, previous could refusal harborage,” given his rodent ing allegations were Coppock’s DPH and the and Lee. verify Lasby nor disconfirm inspection. boarding- external these on their because based also concerned Sisley, whose by Hugh were owned houses ob- that their Lee concluded Lasby and Gilbert, associate, previously Keith sufficiently corroborative servations inspec- employees DPH threatened justify further allegations Coppoek’s light Sisley properties. of other war- tions sought a search so investigation, history, criminal violent submitted of Gilbert’s on declarations rant. Based judge possibility magistrate Lasby,2 the DPH considered Coppock authorizing in- try disrupt inspection might warrants issued two that Gilbert at 6418 located the houses DPH to search assault member or even spection, evi- NE for Brooklyn Avenue and 6420 team. Specifically, infestation. rodent dence of DPH inspection, morning On the *5 DPH to: authorized
the warrants sequentially, the houses to search decided exterior, not including but the [Ijnspect at 6418 located house beginning with the areas, crawls- yards, to, common limited not NE, were there Brooklyn Ave. because any basements, attic and porches, paces, protect to present officers enough police the on appliances buildings, [and] out began DPH Before inspection teams. two including inside specifically premises, Brook- at 6418 located the house to search of the yard proper- in the rear the shack offi- NE, police Seattle Ave. lyn several living unit. as a that serves ty Anti- cers, members including some you that IT IS FURTHER ORDERED After Team, the house. secured Crime in areas premises the inside search police inspection, the first completed DPH exist, including but may where violations boardinghouse the other secured officers dwelling any individual to not limited in- Before both it. inspected DPH and other or rooms or apartments units or each gathered officers police spections, the exist inside may that units housing location, gave in one building’s tenants closets, cabinets, under building, main warrants, inspection the copies of them furniture, appli- furniture, inside inside inspecting DPH why them told and areas, storage spaces, ances, in common houses. the basements, and attics. arrived, they DPH the and When DPH to search ordered The warrants Ade first and informed Ade approached of of violations “evidence and to seize inspect DPH had warrant includ- that ... Code Municipal Health Seattle rat infesta- for evidence boardinghouses any other ing photographs Plain- supporting debris, deposition infestation.” In his filth, or insect tion. rodent judgment, summary DPH to “obtain authorized opposition tiffs The warrants necessary prop- po- and the is when DPH assistance that whatever testified Ade the circumstances.” warrants inspection er under presented lice read the Ade time to him, they give did not Depart- Police DPH Seattle asked time warrants, that Ade would saying “to the warrants help execute ment approving Lasby, and in dec- included for warrants application 2. The judge reli- magistrate indicated warrants Lasby, and Lee. Coppock, larations Lasby declarations. Coppock on to that ance almost identical of Lee was declaration to read the warrants Although later. ately” Emry took to the room in which the officers’ guns holsters, were in their were detaining tenants, the other straps holster were “unsnapped.” where gave Emry officers a copy of the search warrant and Emry asked an un- Ade, According to the officers ordered specified questions.” “series of Emry also Ade to accompany them and to unlock testified an officer in the detention doors inside the house located at 6418 room told Emry, Sogga, Ave., and the Brooklyn NE. The threat- officers room, tenants that they ened to break could not down the if doors Ade did smoke they unless comply. Ade “handcuffed to testified that po- as the front porch” and they lice could “only go officers secured the boardinghouse to the bathroom with a NE, located at escort.” Ave the of- During Emry’s deposition, ficers weapons, drew their which Defen- frisked tenants, dants offered in support of them, summary judg- “scream[ed] ‘Get ment, up, get up, warrant, Emry testified that get out of he concluded your room,’ stuff.” But Ade searched his also room be- testified that cause “[a]s didn’t I was being “[Ade] see of- told [police whether [sic] ficers], you know, or not I drugs or ransacking people’s weapons, had the [offi- rooms like cer] did.” Defense did a visual counsel kind glance over into asked my whether Ade he room.” po- concluded that Defense counsel asked Emry lice officers searched his rooms whether he tenants’ reason to believe “based on what fact,” [Ade] saw after the Emry’s entered room or searched to which Ade answered ‘Tes.” Emry’s belongings, Emry which re- *6 sponded “No, I guess not.”
After police secured the boarding- house at Brooklyn NE, located Ave. Plaintiff Sogga testified declaration and during inspection, which lasted that she up woke when she heard the approximately hours, two police de- police make a “loud noise” entering the tenants, tained the building’s including house, and that a police officer directed plaintiffs Sogga Emry, and in a secure her to the detention room as soon as he Bauer, room. Officer helped who secure her, saw at point which gave an officer the boardinghouses, testified that the offi- Sogga a of the copy inspection warrant. cers selected the room in which the offi- Sogga also testified that “[a]n individual cers held the tenants because “it was the associated with the SPD took my informa- only room that didn’t garbage in it. tion and entered it into a computer de- It empty was big and it was enough to— vice.” According to Sogga’s testimony, The other very, rooms were very tiny and about ninety search, minutes into the a this was the biggest space in house.” police officer retrieved Sogga from the de- tention room and took her into base- support of Plaintiffs’ motion for sum- ment, her room where was mary An judgment, located. plaintiff Emry testified officer “Sogga” told that he had found declaration that he up woke when he heard drug paraphernalia in her room. In his “pounding” officers on the door to deposition, his room which Defendants and that offered in two officers de- support of Emry summary tained judgment, as he exited his in Officer room order pat Zylak, “to Carl who against helped me down secure wall board- and inghouse me drugs ask[ ] about weapons.” NE, Ave. testi- According to Emry, the fied “Upon completion that: officers re- of searching Emry fused to cup residence, let drink a or I coffee observed what appeared to Instead, smoke cigarette. they “immedi- be a ziplock baggie of suspected magic on her NE, knocked police officers Sog- when room of Tenant in the mushrooms of the search door, copy me “[t]he “handed testified that Zylack also ga....” weap- plain any drugs in warrant, seen if I were asked mushrooms magic which De- deposition, go I to During her me had my room told view.” ons in summary support offered fendants refused The officers of 6420.” the back there confirmed that Sogga judgment, room to Dawson to remain allow drug para- magic mushrooms were Daw- inspection. DPH observe day of the on the in her room phernalia get not that she “did even testified son also mush- that the Sogga testified inspection. When she on shoes.” put a chance to on the container “were a silver rooms yard, an officer asked the back reached ” not indicate does The record table.... identification, which was Dawson for her that the container Sogga testified whether An officer escort- room. in Dawson’s still covered. room, at which to her Dawson back ed arrest under Sogga placed An officer ap- Officers saw two SPD point “[Dawson] Sogga testi- rights.” [Sogga her] “and read officer was searching it.” One parently her questioned police officers fied closet, the oth- while looking into Dawson’s they her room was in what about table that “standing to the next er was in her contained to information referred jew- papers, personal [Dawson’s] contained also testified Sogga papers.” “personal materials, and medication.” making elry [sic] then told Officers that: “The SPD her to retrieve allowed Dawson The officer to search a consent sign that I needed shoes, identification, her but even I go jail. I would my room or form for testified, there was bro- though, Dawson lawyer could talk to if I asked patio.” “around glass ken jail.” one I talk to from [sic] told could to the corner to walk allow Dawson did not form and the consent signed the Sogga remainder during the fruit stand room. to the detention police returned her “approximately inspection, which lasted after her room Sogga returned When that after one hour.” Dawson testified twenty minutes released the tenants her, to her returned released she testified, it was “clear” later, Sogga *7 pa- my personal “all and found that room my en- thoroughly searched “had in a arranged and pers been moved contents,” an en- including room and tire I how had them different than manner Sog- photos” of containing “intimate velope my on table The medication organized. ga. Later, during rearranged.” been had also at the house located DPH then searched of- Defendants deposition, which Dawson’s police de- NE. The Brooklyn Avenue 6420 summary judgment, support fered tenants, Daw- including plaintiff its tained not observe that she did testified Dawson the duration son,3 backyard for in the and that papers move her officer Dawson search, forty minutes. about them. moved not know who she does that she tried by declaration testified accompanied DPH Although officers at 6418 located boardinghouse enter security provide searches to during the in- DPH was NE while Brooklyn Avenue that the officers testimony was there it, let her would but the not specting of tenants’ rooms searches some conducted “expecting Dawson was enter. security, the to providing incidental hours more than two after search” for inspection rodent conduct Brooklyn Ave did not at 6418 began search, and he at the time home in the house Foltz located 3. Plaintiff lived NE, detained. Brooklyn but was not he Avenue infestation. None of the residents was trict court awarded Defendants, costs to injured or transported from boarding- which Plaintiffs also now challenge. houses to a station. Neither search
yielded much that the boarding- II houses were by then infested rats. We must decide whether health investi- Sogga and Emry, residents of units at gators Lasby Lee, extension 6418, Foltz, and Dawson and residents King County, violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth units at sought damages in ac- this rights by Amendment seeking and execut- § tion under U.S.C. alleging ing a warrant to search for evidence of the search of their homes was unconstitu- rodent infestation detaining Plain- tional because Lasby and Lee lacked tiffs the search. We also must probable cause when applied for the decide City whether the of Seattle is liable inspection warrants and because the war- as a municipality for having a policy or rants were too broad. Plaintiffs also custom that caused Plaintiffs to be de- sought damages King from County al- tained unreasonably by City of Se- legedly failing to employees train its re- attle’s police during the search of Plain- garding proper standards for obtain- residences, tiffs’ in violation of the Fourth ing a search warrant. Finally, Plaintiffs and Fourteenth Finally, Amendments. we sought damages from of Seattle must decide whether the district court its alleged custom policy abused discretion in its awarding costs to caused Plaintiffs to be unconstitutionally Defendants. detained during inspection.
On
A.
summary
cross-motions for
judg-
ment, the district court dismissed Plain-
To establish a violation of 42 U.S.C.
tiffs’ suit against Lasby and Lee. The
§
prove
Plaintiffs must
that Lasby
court
probable
concluded that
cause exist-
(1)
and Lee:
acted under color of state
ed to support a
inspect
warrant
law, and
deprived Plaintiffs of their
houses located at
6418 and 6420
rights.
Atkins,
constitutional
v.West
Avenue NE for violations of the Seattle
42, 48,
U.S.
1062 be of a will warrants, or evidence crime agree we contraband ble administrative conclusion based on the particular place,” ultimate in a court’s found with district by prob- supported warrants were v. totality that the Illinois of circumstances. not overbroad. 2317, and were Gates, 213, 238,103 able cause 76 S.Ct. U.S. 462 (1983). cause probable 527 L.Ed.2d § 10.34 was en- Municipal Code Seattle standard: of infectious spread “the to prevent acted specifically and contagious diseases and that the facts available [Mjerely requires Plague’ known as ‘Bubonic the disease man officer would “warrant a to the mice, rats, rodents.” by and other in caution the belief’ reasonable (2004). The § 10.34.010 Municipal Code or may contraband sto- certain items be places premises that “[a]ll Code states a evidence of property or useful as len mice, rats, free from maintained shall be any showing crime; demand it does not rodents; unlawful and it shall be and other more correct or a belief be such fail to thereof to occupant or for the owner than false. likely true and reme- preventive take reasonable such 730, 742, Brown, 103 460 as shall be v. U.S. purpose for such Texas dial measures (1983) (citation of Public the Director 502 prescribed 75 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. § These sections Id. 10.34.030. Health.” omitted); Pringle, v. U.S. Maryland 540 ordinances, a are criminal of the Code 366, 370-71, L.Ed.2d 157 by a may punished be violation which (“[T]he stan probable-cause 769 $300, not imprisonment fine to exceed concep nontechnical practical, is dard See Se- ninety days, or both. to exceed prac with the factual and tion that deals § Because Municipal Code 10.34.040. attle everyday life on tical considerations criminal to search DPH obtained warrants men, not prudent which reasonable violations of the boardinghouses for (internal technicians, quotation act.” legal cause Code, necessary probable it was omitted)). marks Const, the warrants. U.S. support Here, Lasby’s decla Coppock’s and (“[N]o issue, Warrants shall amend. IV probability” a “fair cause, rations created supported upon probable but affirmation, de- would be particularly a crime found or evidence of Oath searched, and the scribing place Coppock’s be NE. Avenue seized.”). things to be persons that these two hous suggested declaration rat as es deserved to be characterized a. Cause Probable food,” “rotting “rat observed traps. He magistrate judge’s review We urine,” feces,” bugs, roaches and “rat for clear er cause determination probable infirmities both as well structural F.3d Wong, v. ror. United States them allow rats enter houses that would (9th Cir.2003); States United 835-36 freely. He also ob about move Cir.2000). F.3d 634 n. Hay, 231 junk and debris located piles of served warrant “if not invalidate a search We will could houses which rats close to both judge had ‘substantial magistrate nest. supporting concluding *9 basis’ magis- by considered The evidence the cause.” probable established affidavit trate, whole, a a would permit viewed Clark, 831, 834 31 F.3d States v. United that a search to believe person reasonable (9th Cir.1994); County v. Greenstreet probability had a fair of these houses (9th Bernardino, 1306, 41 1309 F.3d San Health and evidence of serious revealing Cir.1994). context, cause probable In this hold that the Safety violations. We Code probability a fair if “there is exists
1063 supported by probable warrants were measures for such purpose as shall be cause. prescribed by the Director of Public Health.” This ordinance was written however, urge, Plaintiffs Lasby’s conjunctive, the and it interpreted must be responses to interrogatories their indicat- impose distinct duties on a building’s that he ed believed he was searching only owners and occupants: first, to maintain for a violation of Seattle Municipal Code building rats, the mice, “free from and § 10.34.030.5 argue Lasby Plaintiffs rodents,” second, other and to comply not with could have had probable cause to preventive reasonable and boardinghouses because, search the remedial mea- under sures issued the theory Plaintiffs, Director of asserted Public Health. As 10.34.030, held, we have § could have violated no statute is normally matter interpreted what condition be boardinghouses so that all of its in, given unless are expressly meaning words dis- and not rendered obeyed a preventive superfluous. or remedial order Defenders of Wildlife Browner, from the Director of Public (9th Health. 191 F.3d Cir. 1999). argument
This fails. As the dis argument fails, therefore, be- pointed out, trict court these warrants probable cause cause suspect existed to generally authorized DPH to search for breach of the owner’s prescribed first rodent Lasby’s infestation. duty, statement, even if there no made was evidence that discovery, years searches, the owner had after the breached cannot limit the second. It retroac tively justifications would be incorrect for for these us to interpret warrants this Watson, Lasby presented City’s and Lee section Health Safety magistrate. Code, See United States v. Hu which was clearly pre- intended to (9th guez-Ibarra, 954 F.2d Cir. proliferation vent the vermin, of rats and 1992) (“In reviewing the magistrate’s deci to allow a building to be overrun by rats that probable existed, sion cause we are until the Director of specifi- Public Health limited to the information contained within cally commands Stated otherwise. anoth- the four corners of the support affidavits way, er prohibits ordinance maintain- ing application for the search war ing premises that by rodents, are infested rant.”); Brown, United States v. 455 F.2d prohibition necessary avoid the haz- Cir.1972) (“In considering ards of plague rodent-caused and other validity warrant, of the search we are diseases, serious prohibition this can limited to the information and circum violated without a be failure to take admin- stances that were available to magis istratively requested remedial action. Be- issued.”). trate at the time the warrant was cause there probable cause that a houses located at 6418 and
Plaintiffs’ argument misinterprets Brooklyn NE Municipal 10.34.030, § Avenue would reveal Seattle Code which crime, evidence of a premises posed “[a]ll states: one that places shall be health rats, mice, maintained free from hazards of potentially epidemic propor- rodents; tions, and it shall magistrate unlawful for judge properly be occupant owner thereof to fail permissibly to take issued warrants to search preventive such reasonable and remedial properties. these Interrogatory 5. part: No. 10 stated in "Identi- at 6418 September Avenue N.E. on fy specific Municipal Health Code Lasby responded by 1999....” citing (SMC) you ordinance and subsection § SMC 10.34.030. probable being cause to believe was violated
1064
(3)
de-
property
or
inally possessed;
b. Overbreadth
or
use or which is
or intended for
signed
par
must describe
valid warrant
A
of commit-
used as the means
has been
may
that officers
places
ticularly the
a criminal offense.
ting
items that
types of
and
800
Spilotro,
v.
States
may seize. United
to
failed
The warrant
F.2d at 961.
800
Clark,
(9th Cir.1986);
31
959, 963
F.2d
could be
that
between items
distinguish
to
exists
requirement
This
at 836.
F.3d
govern-
that the
lawfully and those
used
searches
exploratory
general,
“prevent[]
cause to believe
probable
ment had
through a
rummaging
indiscriminate
and
issue,
at
enterprise
criminal
of the
part
F.2d
belongings.” Spilotro,
person’s
of
wholesale seizures
“authorized]
and it
963.
at
generally
not
categories of items
entire
spe-
must be
description
Although
at 964.
activity.”
“[t]he
Id.
of criminal
evidence
conduct-
person
to enable
enough
cific
government
explained
But we
identify the
reasonably to
ing the search
over-
facial
cured
warrant’s
could have
seized,” Id., we
to be
things authorized
it
describing the items
either
breadth
which
“[w]arrants
made clear
have
find,
describing the
to
or
expected
are
categories
items
generic
describe
to find
hoped
it
activities of which
criminal
precise
invalid if a more
necessarily
Id.
evidence.
subject
seizure
the items
description of
here, by con
The warrants
issue
Id.
possible.”
is not
activity of
trast,
the criminal
did describe
standard, we
invali-
Applying this
to find evi
hoped
government
which
authorized a search
a warrant
dated
dence,
of rat infesta
evidence
specifically
substances, drug
“narcotic controlled
so
living conditions
or evidence of
tion
equip-
marijuana cultivation
paraphernalia,
These
filthy
to invite such infestation.
notes,
instructions,
maga-
ment,
cultivation
exhaustively
places
described
warrants
documents,
records
zines,
and
currency,
DPH to
judge authorized
magistrate
vio-
[a]
fruits and instrumentalities
and
the war
importantly,
But more
search.
841(a)(1).”
§
U.S.C.
lation of Title
DPH could
the items that
rants limited
Clark,
concluded
1065 related exploitation ‘sexual of a C ”); child.’ see Spilotro, also F.2d at 800 963 Plaintiffs contend that City of Se- (laying out a standard to measure the attle is liable officers, because its pursuant warrant). specificity of a We conclude to an official policy, unreasonably detained overbroad, that the warrants were not 3 Plaintiffs while DPH searched the houses they and that satisfied the Fourth Amend- located at 6418 and 6420 Brooklyn Avenue requirement ment’s specify particularly NE. The district court pur- assumed for places that officers could search and poses of analysis its that the Seattle Police they items that could seize. The Department policy follows a detaining of health investigators had sufficient guid- building’s occupants whenever officers con- ance that they were searching evidence duct an involuntary Nonetheless, search. “filth, debris, rodent or insect infesta- the district court concluded that specified warrants, tion” as in the and the detentions were constitutionally permissi- residents had fair object notice of the law, ble as a matter granted sum- the search.
mary judgment to
appeal,
Defendants. On
B
challenge
Plaintiffs
the district court’s con-
clusion and assert
that
their
A
detentions
municipality is liable for the con
stitutional
unreasonable and
torts of its
therefore
employees
unconsti-
under
§ 1983 where its
tutional.
“failure to train amounts
to deliberate indifference to the rights of
Supreme
prece
Court’s
persons with whom the [employees] come
dents,
own,
and our
establish that
po
into contact.” City
Harris,
v.
Canton
may
lice
a building’s
detain
occupants
378, 388,
489
1197,
U.S.
109 S.Ct.
103
while officers execute a search warrant as
(1989).
L.Ed.2d 412
urge
Plaintiffs
long as the detention is reasonable. Mich
Lasby and Lee searched the boarding
Summers,
igan
692,
452
704-05,
U.S.
houses
violation of the Fourth and Four
2587,
101
(“If
S.Ct.
ty is liable for this search because the
harboring contraband is sufficient
per
County did not teach Lasby and Lee a
judicial
suade a
officer that an invasion of
constitutionally valid search and seizure
privacy
justified,
is
it is constitutionally
method. Because we
Lasby
conclude that
require
reasonable to
citizen
re
and Lee’s search did not deprive Plaintiffs
main while officers of the
execute a
any
law
however,
constitutional right,
Plain
cannot,
home.”);
valid warrant to search his
law,
tiffs
Gan-
as matter of
establish a
§
1115,
valid
1983
ivich v.
against
Knapp,
claim
319 F.3d
King County.
1120
Bros.,
Cir.2003)
Flagg
Brooks,
Inc. v.
(concluding
U.S.
that it was reason
(1978).6
1066
reject
argument for two
this
premises
case. We
the business’s
searched
Ganwich,
warrant).
First,
applied
in
we
To determine
reasons.
to a
pursuant
is
for
incident to a search
in
context of a search
a detention
Summers
whether
reasonable,
violation,
balance the
we
constitutionally
criminal
of a
evidence
by the
interests served
fraud,
law enforcement
a search for contra-
not
consumer
in-
public’s privacy
against the
Ganwich,
detention
1120.
319 F.3d at
Gan-
band.
Ganwich,
1120.
F.3d at
319
terests.
a
for evidence
involved
search
wich
Summers,
recognized
have
we
Since
deceptive
was
by a business that
conduct
at
occupants serves
detaining
building’s
a
consumers;
to
contraband
or unfair
interests:
enforcement
three law
least
argu-
in the search.
not at issue
from
first,
suspect
a
prevents
detention
law,
with our
ment is inconsistent
Circuit
contra-
discover
fleeing before
liberty
is not at
here
panel
and our
second,
band;
minimizes
risk
detention
prior
a
decision of this Court.
overrule
occupant might be
an officer or an
421 F.3d
Rodriguez-Lara,
States v.
United
search;
third, de-
during the
harmed
Cir.2005)
“a
(noting that
943
Sum-
expedites a search.
tention often
panel may not overrule
three-judge
[9th
2587;
702-03,
mers,
101
452
at
S.Ct.
U.S.
intervening
precedent] absent
Su-
Circuit
Ganwich,
F.3d at 1120.
319
Also,
authority”).
preme Court or en banc
may have been
previously
Whatever
a
for
Muehler itself involved
search
both
of a
on the reasonableness
thought to bear
contraband,
solely
not
a
search,
to a
the Unit-
detention incidental
Muehler,
for contraband.
125 S.Ct.
recently held
Supreme Court
ed States
(“Muehler
a search war-
at 1468
obtained
authority to detain inci-
officer’s
“[a]n
...
that authorized a broad search of
rant
it
not
categorical;
a
is
does
dent to search
for, among other
premises
the house and
proof justifying
‘quantum
on the
depend
deadly weapons and evidence of
things,
of the intrusion to
detention or the extent
Thus,
gang membership.”).
the doctrine
”
by the seizure.’ Muehler v.
imposed
be
Summers, permitting po-
Michigan
1465, 1470,
Mena,
U.S.
individuals
a
lice officers
detain
added).
(emphasis
L.Ed.2d 299
Muehler,
search,
principle
and the
hold-
lan-
interpret
Supreme
Court’s
We
authority to detain incident to
ing that the
that the duration of a de-
guage to mean
apply to all searches
categorical,
search is
may
period
be coextensive with the
tention
cause,
just
probable
to searches
upon
search,
justifi-
no further
require
of a
for contraband.
not, however, have
cation. The
do
building’s
authority to detain a
apart
unfettered
from Muehler’s en
Even
any way they
see fit.
Id.
occupants
categorical
of an officer’s
au
dorsement
authority
an officer’s
Muehler confirms
thority
building’s occupants
to detain a
building’s occupants during
detain
it,
the officer searches
here the law
while
long
the officer conducts the
search so
safely
enforcement interests
effec
Thus,
in a reasonable manner.
detention
conducting these
tively
searches
permissibly detain
the Seattle
could
am
boardinghouses for rodent infestation
DPH
the board-
Plaintiffs while
searched
justified
police to detain Plaintiffs
ply
of rat
infestation.
inghouses for evidence
Summers,
See
during the search.
The owner of these boardinghouses was We conclude that the detaining of Plain- associated with a man not only who had a tiffs and the manner of Plaintiffs’ deten- violent criminal history, previous- but who tions were constitutionally permissible.8 ly had threatened DPH employees con- Resolving all disputes factual in favor of cerning the officials’ inspections of the the nonmoving party, as we must when we Also, properties. landlord’s police did review an order granting summary judg- exactly many ment, know how people were the record does not indicate a genu- inside the boardinghouses, or the identities ine issue of fact material whether the de- of who those were there living or what taining of Plaintiffs and its manner were might other visitors pose dangers. Allow- constitutionally impermissible. In Mueh- ler, ing an unknown number of unidentified Supreme Court held that “Mena’s people to move unsupervised about during detention in handcuffs for the length of the an involuntary inspection would dramati- search was consistent with our opinion in cally increase the likelihood that an Michigan Summers, occu- and that the offi- pant injure officer, could or kill an or that cers’ questioning during that detention did 7. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants over- boardinghouses, search of the and whether stated the investigators' officers' and health the manner of that detention was constitu- concerns, safety but Plaintiffs submit no evi- tionally reasonable. We do not here assess dence to testimony counter the submitted might the same issues that be considered had Defendants were officers concerned yielded search of a tenant’s room safety their conducting because subject was later the of a motion to involuntary an buildings search of two hous- suppress in a Apart case. criminal from the ing residents, an unknown number of with a decision to detain and the manner of deten- possibly deposition, hostile landlord. At Offi- tion, police might conduct raise Hope cer police Bauer testified that the de- question constitutional appropriate in an case tained Plaintiffs to safety” ensure "officer is not before us. light history of "a problems with associates Moreover, even if police we could consider landlord,” specifically Keith Gilbert. detention, conduct unrelated to manner of Bauer testified that "[Gilbert] would be in the Appellants' claims of misconduct dis- vicinity inspections or at any house in summary missed judgment on were claims for belonged Hugh the area that Sisley and I damages against City of Seattle and the was told he problems had caused and either Police, against Chief of attempted not claims the individ- inspectors.” or assaulted one of the ual engaged Zylak Officer who had Carl also in the testified that the offi- alleged cers misconduct. safety detained Plaintiffs have not Plaintiffs shown "for reasons.” policy practice that there was a appeal, 8. On of Seattle right by Plaintiffs have contended that caused violation of their detentions violated Fourth individual officers. Dep’t Amend- See Monell v. Servs., We 691-694, ment. address whether Soc. 436 U.S. 98 S.Ct. authority (1978). to detain pending Plaintiffs 56 L.Ed.2d611 circumstances, for the it was reasonable rights.” Amendment Fourth her
not violate
(citations
boardinghouses aggres-
omit-
to enter the
Muehler,
at 1468
Muehler,
sidearms,
Immi-
ted).
agent of the
as was
sively
drawing
an
their
(INS)
Service
testimony, would
gration
and Naturalization
indicated
Plaintiffs’
who de-
police officers
accompanied
unreasonable.
not render
the detention
agent asked
The INS
Id.
tained Mena.
Further,
immedi-
it
not unreasonable
ques-
several
other detainees
Mena and
and detain Plaintiffs
ately
gather
status,
immigration
tions,
her
including
tenants,
credit
even when we
the other
birth;
agent
also
name,
place
testimony that some officers
immigra-
produce
each detainee
asked
process.
yelled at
Supreme
Id. The
tion documentation.
*14
of detention rendered
is the manner
Nor
ques-
in
that
clear Muehler
made
Court
ten-
police
permit
if
did not
unreasonable
police
the
detain
person whom
tioning a
coffee; to
cigarettes
or
pause
ants to
not re-
does
building
to a
incident
contrary, it was reasonable to assem-
the
cause because
probable
independent
quire
earli-
place
in a suitable
at the
ble tenants
does not consti-
questioning
police
“mere
in
to facili-
opportunity
order
practical
est
Flori-
(quoting
at 1471
a seizure.” Id.
tute
completion.
its
inspection
the
tate
Bostick,
429, 434, 111 S.Ct.
501 U.S.
da v.
light
Supreme
in
Particularly
(1991)). The
Su-
quest to
the court otherwise
party unless
might
prevailing
have frustrat-
her shoes
to retrieve
directs.”).
presumption,
To overcome this
to the extent
DPH
ed the
establish a reason
similarly
losing party
re-
must
might have
tenants
Cal.,
Stanley
to retrieve
v. Univ.
S.
deny
to their rooms
costs.
access
quested
Cir.1999).
Here,
there is
Because
wanted.
178 F.3d
items that
suggest
record to
awarded costs to Defen
the district court
no evidence
an unreason-
patio
dants,
created
prevailed.
on the
glass
who
and that the
injury to Dawson
risk of
able
urge that we should
Defendants
risk,
con-
of that
we
were aware
Plain
of costs because
not reach the issue
deny
decision to
the officers’
clude that
challenge the district
neglected to
tiffs
did
to retrieve her shoes
request
Dawson’s
in their Notice of
of costs
court’s award
manner of Plaintiffs’ deten-
not render
3(c)(1)(B) (“A
R.App. P.
Appeal. See Fed.
constitutionally impermissible.
tions
designate
... must
appeal
notice
con
aided a lawful search
This detention
order,
part
appealed
or
thereof
judgment,
sup
to valid warrants
pursuant
ducted
from.”);
v. Oakland Sca
see also Torres
The offi
by ample probable cause.
ported
Co.,
312, 317, 108
venger
487 U.S.
S.Ct.
reason to be concerned about
cers had
(holding
101 L.Ed.2d
safety and their own.
inspectors’
health
jurisdictional
“may not waive the
a court
questioned Plain
permissibly
The officers
R.App.
3 and
requirements
P.]
of [Fed.
drugs
their rooms contained
tiffs whether
under Rule
‘good
cause shown’
even
manner of Plaintiffs’ de
weapons.
met”);
they have not been
if it finds that
po
commensurate with the
tentions was
Heckler,
1274, 1276
811 F.2d
Vernon
tenants,
merely
that not
*16
tential threat
Cir.1987)
(9th
(holding that the Ninth Cir
landlord and his associates
but also the
jurisdiction
appeals
over
cuit lacks
inspectors. And
to the officers and
posed
notice). But
untimely
improper
give
tenants did not last
the detentions of the
party
to contest an
our case law allows
necessary to conduct
longer
than
if
notice
appeal
on
even the
award of costs
search,
Plaintiffs as
released
as
expressly.
issue
appeal
did not raise the
search. Nor
completed
soon as DPH
each
Ins. Co. v. Am.
See Cal. Union
Diversified
condition Plaintiffs’ release
did the
(9th
Bank,
556, 567
948 F.2d
Cir.
Sav.
on Plaintiffs’ submission
from detention
1991)
challenge to taxation of
(ruling on a
the officers in Gan
interrogation, as did
being
order not
men
despite
costs
Ganwich,
F.3d at 1122.
wich.
319
We
Appeal
holding
tioned in the Notice of
that Plaintiffs’ detentions were
conclude
judg
“from the
Appeal
that the Notice of
constitutionally permissible.
appeal
of the denial
incorporates
ment
costs”).
hold
motion to retax
We
of the
D
Appeal from the
that Plaintiffs’ Notice of
turn to the issue
costs. We
We
judgments incorpo
district court’s adverse
review for abuse of discretion
district
appeal of the dis
present
Plaintiffs’
rates
court’s award of costs. Miles v. Califor
to award costs
trict court’s decision
(9th Cir.2003).
nia,
986,
320
Un
F.3d
988
Defendants.
54(d),
der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
merits, Plaintiffs
Turning to the
presumption
prevailing
there is a
that the
that the district court
have not established
its
costs.
party will be awarded
taxable
following
pre
Transit,
abused its discretion
335
Valley
Save Our
v. Sound
Federal Rule of
raised under
932,
Cir.2003);
sumption
F.3d
Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(d).
contend
54(d)(1) (“[C]osts
attorneys’ Civil Procedure
than
H.A.,
II.D.,
the district court should not have
II.B. and
opinion’s
analysis
awarded costs to Defendants because De-
against
of claims
King
I
County,
cannot
misrepresented
fendants
two facts in their
concur
section
dealing
II.C.
with the
joint
motion
limine: first that Defen-
liability
City
of the
of Seattle.
I disagree
timely
dants
served Plaintiffs with Re-
majority’s
with the
reasoning in that sec-
2003;
quests
May
Admission on
opinion
tion of the
alternate,
and offer an
second, that Plaintiffs did not contest their
taking as true the Plaintiffs’ (non-moving
obligation
respond
Requests.
to the
In
parties’)
facts,
assertion of the
as the basis
fact,
object
Plaintiffs did
to Defendants’
deciding
these claims.
offi-
Requests
Requests
because the
cers’ search of boarders’ rooms was not
14, 2003,
May
served on
which was not
reasonable within the meanings of Gan-
timely. Defendants
responded
However,
wich and Muehler.
since the
limine,
preparing
while
their motion in
De-
against
suit is
City,
not the individual
stamp
fendants relied on the date
indicat-
officers, Monell v. Department
Social
ing
copy
when Plaintiffs received a
Senices,
436 U.S.
Requests,
incorrectly
which
May
read
(1978),
L.Ed.2d 611
controls. Plaintiffs
2003. Defendants admitted an error and
have not shown that
the Seattle Police
explained
it,
their view of the reason for
Department’s policies or training caused
when Defendants received
oppo-
alleged deprivation
rights.
of their civil
sition to Defendants’ motion in limine. We
conclude that
it may
whether
have been a
majority
opinion, the preamble to
mistake or rather could be considered
Section II accurately reflects the issues
“misconduct,” Defendants’ conduct was
that we must
appeal.
decide
this
As to
harmless because the district court never
City
Seattle,
the issue is “whether
ruled on Defendants’ motion in limine.
of Seattle is liable
a municipali-
Under all
presented,
of the circumstances
ty for having
policy
or custom that
we
hold
the district court’s decision to
caused Plaintiffs to be detained unreason-
award costs to Defendants over Plaintiffs’
ably by
City of
police during
Seattle’s
objection was within the Court’s discretion.
residences,
the search of Plaintiffs’
in vio-
TRW, Inc.,
See Nat’l
Sens. v.
*17
Info.
lation of the Fourth
(9th Cir.1995)
and Fourteenth
(“A
F.3d
district
Amendments.” Majority at
generally
(empha-
court therefore
must award costs
added).
unless
prevailing party
guilty
determine,
is
sis
of
We need not
as the
fault, misconduct,
some
or
worthy
default
majority
does,
opinion
whether or not the
of punishment.”), overruled on other
conduct of
police
in
officers
their de-
grounds by Ass’n Mexican-American
tention of the Plaintiffs
of
was constitutional
California,
Educators v.
Thus, the assertions, district court’s conclusions re- of Plaintiffs’ there are material garding presented all of the issues this issues of fact that make such a conclusion appeal are: impermissible.
AFFIRMED.
I. Monell Entitles
City
of Seattle to
FLETCHER,
BETTY B.
Judge,
Circuit
Summary Judgment
specially concurring:
Although
Despite
I concur in the result
serious concerns about the con-
reached
majority
opinion and in
police,
sections
duct of the
this case cannot survive
The relevant issue here is
Plaintiffs did not
summary judgment.
contention.
inspectors,
of action the
of DPH
but rather
training
cause
individual
in their
name
officers,
their rooms
searched
police
officers who
of
who are
police
training
Rather, Plain-
rights.
their
and violated
and detention
responsible for the seizure
liability,
municipal
of
a case
pleaded
tiffs
implementation
of the residents incident
of
and its
Seattle
claiming that
According Captain
of a search warrant.
policies
liable for their
police chief
Kessler,
training as to detentions var-
SPD
incident
concerning detentions
situation;
officers
ies from situation
properly
failure to
and for their
warrants
trained to handle such deten-
have been
those deten-
to conduct
train
tions;
training
ongoing
is
to assure
so,
con-
claims are
And
Plaintiffs’
tions.'
are executed in a con-
that the detentions
691-692,
Monell,
at
436 U.S.
trolled
manner. Plaintiffs do not re-
stitutional
summary judgment,
2018. To survive
S.Ct.
training
fute this evidence of
and fail to
of materi-
genuine dispute
there must be
genuine dispute
of material fact as
create
a(l) policy
there was
al fact as whether
of the
Po-
policies
to whether the
Seattle
(3)
caused
violation
practice
Department
lice
caused the violation
rights;
Id. at
1073
considering
beyond
the searches bars us from
those authorized
the warrant.
whether
the searches violated Plaintiffs’ Nor does it allow for
beyond
detention
rights.
necessary to conduct the authorized search
(for
violations,
evidence of health code
Beyond
A. Searching
the Warrant
instance).2
this
majority
Mena,
The
relies on
Muehler
Muehler
permit
and Ganwich
a deten-
Summers,
Michigan v.
and Ganwich v.
tion incident to the execution of a search
Knapp1 to describe the limits within which warrant,
protect
the officers
inspec-
authority
to detain incidental
tors executing that warrant. These cases
to executing a search warrant. Muehler
do
support
a search for items outside
held that
“authority to detain
scope
essence,
the warrant —in
incident to a
categorical;
search is
it does
search incident to the detention.
It was
not depend
quantum
on the
proof justi-
“reasonable” for
to detain the
fying detention or the extent of the intru-
residents in a single room while the DPH
imposed by
sion to be
the seizure.” Mueh-
inspectors executed their search warrant.
Mena,
93,
1465,
ler v.
544 U.S.
125 S.Ct.
It was “reasonable” to frisk the residents
1470,
(internal
All that
be
but a “reasonable
sonable”
knowing
because
whether the de-
detention” does not allow search for items
tained
drug
residents are
users will alert
93,
1. 544 U.S.
125
cally
S.Ct.
including
L.Ed.2d
yard
the shack in the rear
(2005);
452 U.S.
property
living
that serves as a
unit.
(1981);
L.Ed.2d 340
“could talk
po-
that the
consent,
by declaration
she
testified
give
if
her
she refused
*20
lice knocked on her door and told her to
detention of the residents of 6418 was not
proceed
yard.
to the back
She was not
“coextensive” with the DPH inspectors’ ex-
given
put
time to
on her shoes. Once she
ecution of their warrant. DPH Inspector
yard,
reached the back
a police officer Lasby testified that the detention of resi-
identification,
asked for her
which she had
continued,
dents
police
continued to
room;
left
her
the officer escorted her
premises,
after the DPH in-
back to her room to retrieve her identifica-
spectors
completed
had
execution of their
room,
tion. When she entered her
she
Lasby
warrant.
testified that
found
“apparently
two SPD officers
he went with “the entire staff’
get
cup
it.”
searching
Dawson Affidavit. One of coffee in between the inspections of 6418
“appeared
looking
to be
into
closet
[her]
6420;
and that of
they
gone
standing
the other was
next to the
twenty
thirty
Upon
minutes.
returning,
personal
table
contained
papers,
[her]
they had to wait for
police
to “finish
jewelry
materials,
making
and medi-
6418.” Lasby Deposition
98,
2,
June
Again,
police
cation.”
permit
did not
Lasby
2003. Mr.
believed that
police
shoes,
put
Dawson to
on
despite
pres-
“gotten
had
their own search warrant and
ence of
glass
patio
broken
near the
where
were completing work on that.” Id. at 99.
she would be detained.
inspec-
When the
In fact
police
had no such warrant.
tion of 6420 ended and
per-
Dawson was
yard,
mitted to leave the back
she re-
Plaintiff Sogga’s statements
indicate
turned to her room to find that all of her
that the extension of the detention was due
personal papers
rearranged,
had been
search of her room. The
had her medications.
majority may argue that
this extension
Once the
had determined that no
permissible,
although outside the
rooms,
one was left in
had fin-
Muehler,
scope of
because
ished
necessary
the search
to effectuate
probable cause for their
Sogga’s
search of
the detention of
pro-
residents that would
room for drug paraphernalia,
but
such
tect DPH inspectors,
officers,
SPD
and the
determination is
disputed
based on
facts.
residents. At that point, the warrant gave
What is clear
is that
officers’
DPH Inspectors authority to search for
(1)
continued search
was for items not
specified
the items
in the warrant. Con-
covered
DPH’s search warrant and
tinued SPD searches of individual board-
extended the detention of 6418’s residents
ers’ rooms for other than the items listed
such that it was no longer coextensive with
in the warrant was a violation of their
the execution of the warrant. See Mueh-
rights.
constitutional
majority’s justi-
Mena,
ler
544 U.S.
fication for searches
for weapons and
(2005) (“Mena’s
With the Execution of the Search occupant nue and she was an of that ad- Warrant search.”). dress at the time of the Muehler, contrast where the warrant Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ version of the authorized a broad search of the house for facts, credit, which we must does not sup- weapons and of gang member- port majority’s conclusion that “the ship, id. at police released the warrant before us was Plaintiffs as soon as DPH inspecting specific, limiting finished the boardinghouses.” the search to health haz- Majority at 1069. argue that the ards such as rat droppings. *21 defendants, summary judgment to but we to detention and incident
Police searches alleged the duration of misconduct inconsistency between should not condone the length of the author- the detention officers. police of Seattle of conduct brings the issue ized us and officers before
of those majority’s justifi-
brings question into analysis their with a ending
cation for its rea- for the detention and
justification Ganwieh, 319 F.3d at See
sonableness. (“The building occu- n. 9 detention of the execution of pants during Faye SADOSKI, on behalf of Jeanette if it unreasonable may warrant become representative and as a of all herself tell whether the long. too We cannot lasts illegally persons who have been the war- during the execution of detention Nevada re-sentenced Defendant instance, in this as the long rant was too Judge Mosley Donald M. District limit their activities officers did not rights under the Fifth violation of warrant.”). majority’s The executing Amendment of the States Con United encompassed what inquiry should placed in stitution not to be twice two once the residents these happened jeopardy the same criminal of detained, safely boarding houses fense, Plaintiff-Appellant, questioning there was extent to which things outside the searching about and their scope of the warrant and detention MOSLEY, M. an individual Donald as completed. after authorized search was capacity as and also his official majority’s decision not to address Judge Eighth District Court implicitly condones questions these District of the of Neva Judicial State troubling. deeply behavior which is da; Bell, L. as an individual Stewart capacity and also in his official as the III. Conclusion Attorney County, District Ne Clark facts, version of the Crediting Plaintiffs’ vada; Roger, David as an individual must, police officers as we capacity in his official as the also rooms of the residents of searched the Attorney County, District of Clark Ne scope 6420 for items outside the 6418 and vada; Crawford, individ Jackie as an beyond This search went the warrant. capacity ual in her as and also official under Ganwieh and what is reasonable Depart the Director of the Nevada ex- Muehler. The search detention Corrections; County, ment of Clark necessary guarantee ceeded what was Nevada, Defendants-Appellees. security safety inspec- of the DPH residents, tors, officers, and the No. 04-15447. beyond the warrant under which what Appeals, United States Court permitted. to search authority Ninth Circuit. and de- Once boarders had been frisked room, single
tained in a the house was Nov. 2005. Argued and Submitted secure. no need for the There was 24, 2006. Filed Jan. However, further searches. undertake here, I reach the because controls Monell majority, that we
same result grant of
should affirm the district court’s