James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

SCHROEDER, Before FLETCHER and TROTT, Judges. Circuit FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellee James V. brought a Bivens action after by his arrest agents two of the United States Secret agents, Service. The Jeff Jordan Bri- (“defendants”), an V. Hunter bring an in- terlocutory appeal from the district court’s part denial in of their motion seeking dismissal based on qualified immunity.1 Bryant cross-appeal does not other decisions of grant- the district court ing partial summary judgment to de- these fendants and dismissing other defendants.

FACTS May 3, On a sergeant from the University (USC) of Southern California campus security telephoned defendant Hunter. sergeant The told Hunter that had, earlier day, delivered two photocopies of a handwritten letter to two USC administrative sergeant offices.2 The told Hunter that the letter contained refer- plot ences to a to murder President Rea- gan.

The letter large-scale describes a conspir- acy by “Communist white men within the National Council Churches,” whom Bryant refers collectively Im- age.” rambling aIn discourse the letter in general describes terms and with tan- gential conspiracy references a directed males; it black condemns Mr. Im- age, who is viewed as a destructive influ- ence on black (Bryant black.) males. The letter ends warning Image that Mr. intended to assassinate Mr. Reagan during upcoming Germany. (Mr. tour of Im- Pallemon, Robert A. Atty., U.S. Asst. age hoped to install then Vice-President Cal., Angeles, for defendants-appel- Los Bush in House.) the White lants. Hunter read the letter and interviewed Eiden, Angeles, Cal., Richard Los employees two USC who had received plaintiff-appellee. photocopies. employee One Hunt- told er that a black gave man her the letter on 3,May give and told her to it to the 1. Jurisdiction in the district copy was based 2. A of the letter Appendix is included as an 28 U.S.C. appeal § 1331. Defendants under 28 opinion. to this 1291; U.S.C. Forsyth, § see also Mitchell 86 L.Ed.2d 411 fashion, such that rambling and confused Budget She Office. of the USC director identity discern the Mr. about statements made the man said actually “assassination,” there was or whether coups” “bloody Image.” then as Mr. “across known something about said also for threat- moving his was under arrest simultaneously Bryant he told while throat” President, in A sec- the life of the ening his throat. to take horizontally across hand had that she 18 871. Hunter of U.S.C. employee told violation § ond by letter photocopy given a been 6, 1985, May arraigned on Bryant was the it to forward told her to who man pending a without bail held ordered and Hunter She told of USC. President ap- for hearing. He was held detention have been “he should her man told the days, the crimi- until proximately fourteen Hunt- also told in Bonn.” She assassinated on motion complaint dismissed nal himself as James the man identified er that 17, May government the on paper he left with piece of Bryant on a V. 1986, May and his suit in Bryant initiated her. 27, January on complaint an amended filed war- the matter determined Hunter the 1987, of action under alleging causes Ser- investigation. Secret further ranted (FTCA) and a Bi- Act Tort Claims Federal assigned to assist agent Jordan vice motion, government’s theory. On the vens 1985, 3, Hunt- evening, May That Hunter. FTCA dismissed court the district the Angeles ad- Los to a went er Jordan jurisdiction and for lack of of action causes They knocked letter. on provided the dress entirety the action in its dismissed as themselves and announced door on the Service, Doe director and the its Secret the Bryant answer- officers. enforcement law remaining defen- only The defendants. if agents asked door. The ed the They Hunter Jordan. were dants speak with to the residence enter could on the summary judgment moved for permis- agents Bryant the gave Bryant. immunity. district The qualified of ground enter. to sion of some the motion as to granted court agents the Bryant that told Hunter claims, ruled that defendants Bryant’s but letters. photocopied come because immunity on qualified to not entitled were writing the letter Bryant admitted ar- for claims Bryant’s Fourth Amendment Hunter photocopies at USC. leaving the and without probable cause without rest Image,” but identify “Mr. to Bryant asked for motion denied the The court warrant. Hunter responded in a manner Bryant fur- it decided because summary judgment confused,” “rambling and as characterized Defen- necessary. fact-finding was ther Hunter and, according to “refus[ed]” that denial. appeal dants Image. declaration identify Mr. Jordan’s agent Hunter’s, neither consistent DISCUSSION directly. quotes declaration his motion for review a defendant’s We permission to Bryant for asked Hunter seeking judgment, dismissal summary permis- Bryant gave residence. the search immunity, de novo of basis the original letter but Hunter found sion. trial standard did same applying contin- Jordan relevant evidence. no other F.2d Racansky, 887 v. Baker court. who, according to Bryant, talk with ued to Cir.1989). question before The questions con- Jordan, answer refused to service a secret whether court was district feelings about cerning his attitudes at clearly law officer, light established whether to state and refused President 3, 1985, May Bryant’s arrest on time the President. to harm intended believed reasonably have could arresting by the possessed Bryant his information read decided to agents The sup probable cause right agents constituted Bryant waived rights. Miranda 18 U.S.C. under port § an arrest again asked silent. to remain President. threatening the life Image. Ac- identity Mr. him about Creighton, in a responded Anderson Jordan, “Bryant cording (1987); Cir.1988). L.Ed.2d 523 Harlow As with all motions, the evidence should Fitzgerald, be viewed light most 73 L.Ed.2d 396 The district court favorable to as the nonmoving party; prevail on their mo- summary denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, tion for the defen- judgment holding genuine that there were dants must show that were reasonable fact. Because issues of material the rele- in their belief that cause. clearly legal vant rule was established at however, Bryant, prov- bears arrest, the burden of the time of the district right which the defendants factfinding more properly concluded allegedly clearly violated was established necessary determine whether a rea- Baker, time their conduct. agent service sonable secret 185, F.2d at 186. possessed the information he believed that arrest, probable cause for that constituted I. summary judg- the denial of we affirm ment.3 Federal law enforcement officials damages cannot be held liable for under a Ordinarily summary a denial of theory Bivens unless their conduct violates appealable is not because it is clearly right. established constitutional However, interlocutory. purely the Court 635, Creighton, Anderson v. 483 107 U.S. 511, Forsyth, held in Mitchell v. 472 U.S. 3034, 3038-39, (1987); S.Ct. 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) 105 86 L.Ed.2d 411 that S.Ct. 800, 818, Fitzgerald, Harlow v. qualified immunity operate pro should to 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 needlessly government tect officials from Supreme As the Court instructed in defending against suits as well as from Creighton, Anderson v. 107 at S.Ct. prohibit appeals liability, and that to from a operation “clearly of the established qualified immunity denial of until after tri very depends law” standard upon much immunity al mean that the would effective level of abstraction at which the relevant ly Appellate be lost. review of deni legal right alleg rule is articulated. The al of under is Mitchell edly violated must not be defined at the purely legal. This narrow and case re as, generality instance, level of for quires first, us to decide two issues: were law, right process to due for this would established, so, rights clearly and if qualified immunity “convert the rule of ... any genuine there issue of material fact as unqualified into virtually a rule of liabili to whether a reasonable officer could be ty.” right alleged the official is they lieve were violated. clearly have violated must have been estab

Qualified immunity is an affirma “in particularized, lished a more and hence government tive defense which offi more relevant sense: the contours of the proof. right cial bears the burden of Harlow v. sufficiently must be clear that a rea 800, 815, Fitzgerald, 457 102 U.S. S.Ct. sonable official would understand that 2727, 2736, (1982),Benigni 73 L.Ed.2d 396 doing right.” violates Id. Hemet, (9th F.2d City at 3039. warrant, however, It is not clear from either the district court cannot be dismissed. A partial summary judgment genuine order dispute or the tran- concerning factual still exists script proceedings whether the probable district whether the defendants had cause to develop- court found that the further factual plaintiff whether, arrest arrest, at the moment of — necessary ment determine whether the the facts and circumstances within the officers had secret service cause to knowledge arresting officers and of improper inquiry response arrest reasonably trustworthy which —an infor- qualified immunity to an assertion of prudent mation were sufficient to warrant a —or reasonably determine if the officers could have believing had violated cause, believed proper which is the 871(a). 18 U.S.C. Section evaluating qualified standard for immu- Because we find that the Secret failed Service nity. following: The order concludes with the proof to meet their burden of as to even the standard, Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims based more lenient we affirm the denial of summary judgment. on arrest without cause and without 920, 924 887 F.2d Department, L.A. Police under 871(a), statute 18 U.S.C. § Lamb, Cir.1989), 738 F.2d (9th McKenzie v. arrested, provides: Bryant was which Cir.1984). quali- (9th Because depos- willfully knowingly Whoever offi- government immunity protects fied any the mail ... conveyance in its for liability, it is as well as from suit cials take any threat to containing ... letter immunity claims be qualified essential bodily harm of, inflict or to life ... stage of possible earliest States, at the resolved the United President of upon the litigation. Mitchell willfully otherwise knowingly and or ... necessarily expands This Presi- at 2815. against the any such threat makes by the played that must be factfinding more than role fined not shall be dent ... cases, district In some judge. five not more than district $1,000 imprisoned or entitlement able to establish courts will be years, or both. and, trial immunity before qualified construed has been The statute See, discovery. sometimes, before even or the text both require consideration Auken, 887 F.2d 1366 e.g., Ortiz Van con as the as well themselves words de- Cir.1989) court's (9th (reversing district Roy v. delivered. were in which text on claim judgment based summary nial of Cir.1969); States, 416 F.2d finding officer immunity, F.2d 762 462 v. States Moncrief judge search warrant obtained who secret service Cir.1972). for a In order (9th immunity in civil qualified entitled to he had reasonably to believed have agent 887 action); Racansky, Baker v. rights agent must Bryant, the cause arrest Cir.1989) (reversing district (9th F.2d 183 his belief in reasonable have been the summary judgment on denial court’s of he the context which Bryant’s words finding immunity, qualified of basis threat a serious them were delivered clearly es- did violate alleged conduct v. United president. Watts the against Walton, 856 law), v. Merriman tablished 705, 89 S.Ct. States, 394 U.S. Cir.1988) (affirming district 1333 F.2d (1969). L.Ed.2d 664 motion for of defendant’s denial court’s vague this is suggests that a The dissent immunity qualified on “clearly es- cannot constitute standard police officer finding a reasonable grounds, that further suggests It law.” tablished inquiry before further have made would out necessary to flesh be law case arrest). In some making the warrantless for vio- cause” “probable constitutes the development of however, cases, further the standard statute before lation of the it necessary. case record will be “clearly established.” regarded as could be require further the court to proper for capable disagree. This standard We to determine of the facts development by application practical understanding and reasonably service the secret whether A re- statute officers. law enforcement as violat- letter interpreted the could threat, inter- knowing or a willful quiring ing § “a serious mean years preted bodily to inflict immunity doctrine of an intention expression qualified Both Presi- life to take the As upon objective or standard. harm invoke an § 877, vague is not Anderson, a dent,” 416 F.2d at 107 S.Ct. Roy, stated process.” under “due answered 3140, question like standard is not immunity doctrine

II. acted subjectively the officer whether offi- faith, reasonable whether a good could a reasonable officer Whether he believed could have is a cer cause have believed arrest. or to a residence to search fact, summary cause the trier of question for 871 turns Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § violation verdict a a directed § or judgment in- actually individual on whether is not lack based action but whether president, to harm tended only one reasonable if there is proper only interpret person would a reasonable Kennedy reach. jury a conclusion a threat. words used as This court Image has appears to be someone of whom Mr. requirement the willfulness construed of Bryant disapproves appears against to cut requiring “only the statute as that the de- ego Rather, the alter theory. Mr. intentionally make fendant a statement ... part of the evil forces that are keeping in a context or under such circumstances men, black including Bryant oppressed. wherein a reasonable would fore- Additionally, absolutely there was noth- see that interpret- the statement would be ing in surrounding circumstances to ed those to whom the maker communi- suggest reading a different of the letter. cates the as a expression statement serious Rather, vague making disjointed man of an intention to inflict bodily upon harm gestures statements and odd was wander- President_” Roy, ... 416 F.2d at campus around the handing USC out a (emphasis added). (or tract) weird letter addressed to no one Summary is mandated particular, which he wanted delivered to “against party who fails to make a show- university officials. The simply defendants ing sufficient to establish the existence of have not sustained the burden of proving party’s case, an element essential to that their affirmative defense. and on which that will party bear the bur- appears It from the record that no dis- proof den at trial.” Corp. Celotex covery place. has taken Further develop- Catrett, ment of pre-trial the record during or trial L.Ed.2d 265 Viewing may establish information that the secret letter in the context in which it was deliv- agents possessed service that made them evaluating ered in light of these Bryant's believe that letter should be inter- standards, objective the defendants failed preted as a presi- serious threat to meet their proving burden of that a If dent. further development of the record reasonable Secret Service officer in- prior trial, occurs to possible it is that terpret this letter and the attendant circum- renewal of defendants’ motion for summa- stances to constitute a serious threat. ry judgment might at a date appro- later be allegations Hunter and Jordan’s that priate. Our proceed- remand for further they probable had a reasonable belief that ings does not foreclose the defendants Bryant existed to arrest for threaten- presenting additional information that ing life of the the President was based on might establish a that reasonable officer that admission he wrote and deliv- could interpret the letter and the surround- ered a letter which contained references to ing circumstances to constitute attempts assassination directed Reagan, at cause for arresting Bryant for violating Reagan occasionally that visited the Los Information, instance, for § about area, that, Angeles based on their knowledge what Service Secret officers training experience as Secret Service possess as a professional result of their agents, they believed “Mr. Image” could be training about communications thought a pseudonym Bryant. persons disordered well any as as informa- accepting ego” Even the “alter theory tion may have possessed Bryant about by warning that Mr. Image go- what may was necessary be in order to resolve the do, Bryant Mr. to was fact “objective (albeit communi- fact-specific) question cating planned do, he himself whether the a reasonable officer could have entirety letter in its appear read does not to believed [Bryant’s to be lawful in arrest] make president. a threat the light clearly Most of established law and the of the letter does even not talk about Presi- information the searching pos- officers Reagan. A interpre- dent more reasonable sessed.” Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3040. As might letter tation of the be that the Court Anderson, instructed in “... the trying people was to convince of the dan- determination whether it was objectively ger Mr. conspiracy and the posed legally reasonable given to conclude that a rather than that was speaking search supported by probable cause or through Image. Mr. exigent fact that Mr. require circumstances will often III. possessed information of the examination at 3040. searching officials.” Id. by the possibility that at light In may proceedings point the some quali purpose the We are mindful reasonably be that the officers determined disruption prevent the immunity tois fied arrest, probable cause had lieved can result government effective issue this case address second we respond to broad forcing officials from clearly es presents: whether law was courts go trial. As discovery and to 3,1985, a warrant- May as of tablished however, most noted, risk is of an arrestee’s residence arrest inside less intent of the subjective where concern requirement of the the warrant violated Fitzgerald, Harlow v. is at issue. officials Amendment, the arrestee where Fourth 800, 102 73 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 457 U.S. agents’ entry into the consented “subjective aspect” (restricting the (1982) law that the residence.5 We conclude because immunity defense the rele clearly In fact not established. attend the costs that substantial suggested that the strongly case law vant good subjective faith litigation of the that their war officers could have believed only official). Where government long so arrest lawful rantless is the to the factfinder presented question to enter probable cause and consent letter and interpretation of a reasonable York, Payton the residence. In New officers knowledge Secret Service L.Ed.2d considerably sig that risk possessed, held “the (1980), Supreme Court left in Anderson The court nificantly less. police prohibits Amendment ... Fourth for district possibility open noncon making a warrantless dis scope of initially to limit the judges suspect’s home or entry sensual into immunity upon facts which the covery to felony Id. make a arrest.” der to routine turns. determination added). (emphasis 100 S.Ct. at denial of affirming the district court’s Unit Similarly, this court stated dicta point in at this Cir. 626 F.2d Gray, ed States proper that the emphasize we proceedings cause to 1980), “The existence there was inquiry is not whether however, entering a arrest, justify does the secret ser- cause, whether but rather or a home without either consent suspect’s reasonably added). have believed agents (emphasis vice 105 Id. at warrant.” immunity Qualified doc- in there was. available circuits that from other Decisions govern- possibility that in favor of embraces the a trend trine early indicate following make errors of will arrests officers warrantless upholding ment Further, the See, v. e.g., Augustine not unreasonable. are consensual entries. Cir.1984) (con (5th to it was reasonable inquiry Doe, is not whether F.2d actually harm to to be sufficient Bryant entry is sent to assumed believe arrest) (dicta); reason- it United permit but whether was warrantless president, (8th a threat 726 F.2d Briley, he had issued to believe that States able voluntary Therefore, Cir.1984) (“valid factu- consent proper him.4 harm to in-home by a agents may reason- followed warrantless not whether the inquiry is al White, F.2d arrest”); kill or to Bryant intended States ably believed Cir.1981)(consent, even Reagan, 1182-83 assassinated actually could have deceit, justify a subse can reasonably if obtained solely whether arrest, where at least quent warrantless issued threat. believed phrased Although its order upon 5. district preventing assaults addition 4. In lack of probable cause and of lack of terms purpose § 18 U.S.C. president, another warrant, analysis limited whether its upon prevent effect the "detrimental was to agent believed he could have reasonable may activity presidential and movement Bryant. issue of to arrest The probable cause Roy, 416 F.2d at simply a threat.” result without a warrant within a residence arrest not reached. entry solely purpose they for the is not obtained West of Alameda Blvd. the reason suspect). this, arresting Given the state of desire is so that white male students authority appellants may are correct romanticaly become involved with clearly girls, fine, the law did not establish that black idea so far is most agents needed a warrant to arrest black men who understand would welcome entry equal after he consented to into his such a move if to were allowed home, long as cause existed. girls. so access to white dispute no factual is over Since there years proven But two hundred has one entry, appellants are consent thing, bigots White male and the black immunity qualified on this issue. entitled to bigoted jealous femal are of such a union between the blackmale and white-femal.

CONCLUSION keep extreemly order to this crule con- denying the district court The decision of spiracy they conspired put many alive as defendants’ motion young jail posiable, black men in immunity grounds on the state particular just case that is at this time is AFFIRMED. of the record they kept did. In So. Central L.A. young boy unemployed,

black school know- APPENDIX: hopless that such a state would drive eventually by stealing him to brake the law BRYANT’S LETTER ETC. and him out of school and in Jail Jim V. High ripe picking. Jordon would be for the organizations Black-femal 563-0485 aleady extreemly jealous mentioned are (sis Mollins) women, by deception white lie’s many have scared white from con- women [illegible] sidering mate, getting the idea of a black male Childerns Lives bigot every and the White male used Negro The “National Council Women” unholy, illegal keep means to the white Star” the Black churches “Eastern away woman inslaved and from black men. (Communist “Image” men and Mr white greatest life, One of civilized men’s test in Churchs) within the “National Council of relations, inlighten is human men and wom- “Image name to the Beast” is a bibi- [The (white black) en & must wonder how did given identifys cal to and name Nation- organizations these miss the boat with such body] though al of Churches as a Council America, good examples as Central So. women, composed largely it NCC way. America Mexicoto show them the realy appro- control it. men who So is suspose among there is no honor thives priate respectfully address the NCC as among murders, will in this case Mass Mr IMAGE! why they thats got togeth- no doubt never respectable marriage er in a relationship, Image Mr and the two above mention So garbage garbage she became a can for his organizations playing are Politics with our out, until she became burned then he would lives, you orga- would think childerns these send her back into the community black cesspools of corruption nizational filth and marry unsuspecting some black man. find contentment in the millions of responsible already lives are for de- up P.S. Our next white will concern Communism, stroying spreading Via or- with, NAMES, primarily Addresses, itself Crime, ganized ETC. Now are at it and Owners of Black businesses South again, naturaly sex would be involved. pres- Central L.A. and West L.A. who are Crime_ ently organized involved in They want move So. L.A. Commu- nity boundry line from Alameda fur- people ST. Good must now take a [circled:] ther so that east white Students in South anarcy stand or violence and will rule the Calif, Gate, may High, (Back be bussed to Jordon streets NICE and we can have a mostly Compton State) Black school in Calif. free running from Image you

Mr are still me coward, coward, coward, coward, coward, only an Syndrome has not The Jealous coward. large concern, for a Image it is a concern [circled:] Mr Im- men also. Now number of Black Image Mr and Blackmale B. be held will agree boy, i we can all age is a bad think responsible any any hurt done to that, of Black wom- large and a number home or said residents within the L.A. Black-male angels. But en are no Calif, sprayed by area thast has been Bourgeois is another breed. NICE Pest exterminators. criterion, will Image as a we Using Mr James person and charac- attempt to measure the is, saying this writter is a mind as What Bourgeois. In a few the Black-male ter of B., slow as the Black-male is not the kind truthfully de- Image can be words Mr using of mind that heaven would have this Devilish, wicked, cunning, but he scribed power “Image the Beast” found normally consider you would is not what prophecy considered rather he would be stuped, but way, Abraham, intelligent in a kind of highly Satonic Dear friends the God of Isaac say. needless to me to use and very crule and evil and Jacob commissioned be he is contrast, Bourgeois protector power does until His the Black-Male the visable this Image responsiability by powers of Mr church relieves me of not have the mental interlect, doing job doing, is cunning this writter now no near his where exposing Image people may so that child in the average Black-Male B. is a see. cow- know and Image, he knows are face of Mr along their childish plays ards so quietly stept aside my So dear Brothers di- blackmailing at the same time while day. and let LOVE have it’s them; Black- sarming In other words the see, has decreeded you For Jesus Christ and are true mentaly B. are slow Male it, so unwise as and tell me who would be cowards, example An of how their black- go against His will? Upon mailing carried on. adventures are B.), (Black-male my You see brothers being ingaged Blackmailing learning of the you allow to use only way heaven would against the three the Blackmale B. that, you power penalties is without earlier, mentioned this writ- organizations regard- everyone, must first come to love B. the disad- with Blackmale ter dicussed race, color, relegion, creed or even less of Blackmailing. I informed them vantage of looks. how Image Mr they need not blackmail ps.27:4 Isa. beautyfull & You see God Mr explained i to them how get money, 33:17, Beauty and claim to you hate Billion, cant Eight Hun- Image owed me Two Beauty. love God dollars, i and that would fifty million dred them happy to share it with more then [circled:] help hard core unem- joint effort to writters Creator it is this belief ployed in Calif. have this writter of the Universe would pronto (James Bryant) to a voice V. already in- has And since this writter in California!!!!!! Calif, would re- Mr structed [circled:] passes a Congress free unlil the U.S. main Better than Secret “Open rebuke is Law, (which near the Sunday

national Love.” Pro. 27:5 world) jobs then for Calif. end of the So must, and it was this writters is a Citizens receive the again and You must be born a B. embrace hopes that Blackmale would heart, in your your love of God in because also, wispered Image Mr view but (mur- simular Jealousy present spiritural state of ears and their Bills into their a few dollar der), angeles in the three power this found needy was all to care for commitment not dwell message of Rev. 14:9-12 will love forgotten heart, you but love dont your in and without power power, only have REAL Counterfit [circled:] Mr Image you security, lour into a falsh which could yours truely, Reagan with Ronald as lead- it is to late!!!!!! up wake before man, surely big would have been a hit had it come off. news media called you the reader a bit news —Now for it, Lybian “the Hit Squad” interesting. Image Mr wants to might find Image Mr conspired large with a up Reagan on his and murder President number of in plot U.S. officials to mur- Germany. WHY? coming trip to Reagan, Haig der President Mr Mr this, somthing like goes Will it Allen Security along council Bush, George Vice President Now Begin, visiting Isrial’s Mr who was Wash- played back in 1978 and chief CIA Director ington question on the D.C. Middle East in Massacre, key Guyana in for his role According phenix, December of 1981. to a carrying in out his role in the faithfullness Reporter; Black, Mis Wind conspiracy guyana which result- massacre Explosives equipment were obtained being American in Citizens ed over Calif, Phenix, Diego, Arazona and San murdered, promised George Bush was by an American international businessman America, the United States of presidency of shiped Country by across the a Paliste- experty in the field of law and Mr Bush’s Activest, nian his car was ticketed less than day two blocks from the White House the [circled:] meeting. before the scheduled friends, perfect i’m encouraged protects in God and he me but i trust Lybian Squad Hit assassination at- Image & tempt from Mr Satan. was never carried out due to this exposing writter the Plot back in 1981 [circled:] [circled:] pursueth: flee no man “The wicked when Image take Mr would rather on the na- righteous are But the bold as a LiON.” Japan tion a trade war then to Pro. 28:1 tackle with me. he is a coward certainly most would add new enforcement the American businessman and the Pales- power presidency; demenions to tinian pleaded were arrested and both desiring put conspiritors Bush guilty charges relating explosives. and still are white house were desirous of Image Mr try again Now wants to his hand presidential powers his maximum to be em- attempting Reagan to remove President ployed used to silence all matters con- asassination, from the White House Via cerning Guyana Massacre. And Mr Germany in May, while on tour Agreed, that if he was established as Bush Image, guess Will Mr i stoped you we U.S., he President of the would do all he again, Regon you (sm,ll) owe me ONE! surrounding silence all matters President, what, yet you Mr better tell Just Guyana just there Massacre. But one up write it on Love’s account and count it a to, thing tending Reagan Ronald needed joy! poor, Remember the thats how it’s just planned by had been elected friends, my you stop done all have to do to conspiritors, they needed now to remove Image Mr is find out goijng (Mr comrades) him so that & it, put do before print he does it in George Bush in could install the White along Image prophecy with the ias have Reagan House. But the now President has done Images and Mr hands are tied. Image’s of Mr survived two assassination Breefly i just my Japiness want to caution attempts, you the reader no remem- doubt friends Image Prophecy not to use the attempt Blackmail, the most recent on the you. ber Presi- Jesus Christ loves take advice, much, involving my young bigger dents life a crazed man much then you could ever dream. Hinkley DONT Blackmail!! presi- the name of who shot the limosine, intering dent as he was [circled:] attempt the sassination that has the mak- One on Gods side is a MAjority! ings Hollywood of a Box-office best seller Image’s Mr traffic Controled Courts are [illegible presently conspiring my to steal Cad car

[circled:] ...] “Image” Prophecy, usage

that the of the exposing has done in right have a as this writter justification with the ticket, I the President is not a personely conspiracy do to murder i have a because against personal damage Image safeguard or his Black comrads would sure feel Mr my keep- may protect with Jesus Christ as desire to them- get very far others who the “National er. selves from Council (Mr Image) and comrades. Churches” for their own encourage them so i would get Image hoping away Mr that if he can Mullins of and Sis good to leave Sis Smith murdering Ragon, peo- Mr with those my me along they sold Ph 563-0485 discovering ple waking up are and are who my car Image, and leave present car—Mr power prophecy of the will lose confi- along. power Prophecy in the dence conspiring are Bourgeois Blackmale The it, may side or who protect those who with men from recently young released to use protection. Mr counting on it’s P.S. be and terror- County Jail as hit men the L.A. (NCC) Image is scard to death over the mostly Black ist in Communities being exposed by prophe- posiability of women, Images approval Mr with Black 14:9-11 cy of Rev. 13:11-17 & Rev. naturally. TROTT, dissenting: Judge, Circuit anarcy and Image Mr would rather control; Image, to Mr all my respectful quarrel with the violence I base of Cali- of the State good point: men and women one majority opinion primarily on Violence Say, Anarcy No and Spe- fornia we for it was unreasonable do not believe Our State. Agents Hunter and Jordan to have cial and trained conclu- come to the informed Guyana M. More on the cause to had reasonable be- sion material, photo- omiited from [circled the murderous lieve that copy] threatening Image” planning who you by of Jail people just got out The who States. to kill the President did so not using “Image” Prophecy, course, of us who are ration- Of to those carred about you loved or because any al, makes none of behavior (Commu- Bourgeois you; these blackmale sense, and that is the Bryant, did to but it nist) jail in order to got you leaders out by ration- Fantasy judged cannot point. very against the you gang violence use suspend disbelief One must al standards. get you jobs, you see people want to who world. cope the fantasizer’s men, do not young these black Communist every do this Agents of Secret Service work, Image because Mr you to want people who they cope with unstable day as blackmailing not want they are does whom public officials. and stalk our threaten work, agreement compromise this you to Presi- people don’t attack rational Stable Bourgeois Black-men reached for thought process Hinckley’s dents. John (Mr government Image) in the Communist shooting of President leading up to his Bryant will con- writter James V. But this either, any make sense Reagan did not young men in fight jobs for the tinue to stop him from his assassination that did not Central L.A. South attempted murder of attempt. Using the the Black male Commu- Dont Follow P.S. movie get a date with a the President its all over. nist! or strange than either star is no less (6) spent years this writter six [circled:] Bryant’s letter or his behav- “thinking” in = Robbery I know! prison majority opinion insists on Yet the ior. measuring confronted Hunter Reagan. Ronald President standards. in the field rational Jordan murdering (NCC) plans on still Mr basically opinion sees majority trip Germany in President on his though up to some- others were ease Image wants to convince May, 1985. Mr involved; he was thing Bryant was not Bour- have read the “Blackmale those who read, turning speaks in. It just just them geois” you artical the reader has (citation omitted). by Bryant, only by assuming but So a mis- not made even threats as Bryant Bryant it asserts that take in as to whether was Image,” and “Mr. President, Image. threatening This the issue re- identify with Mr. does not point. the mistake rea- All of this mains as to whether completely misses “others,” Bryant. There were no and sonable. figured to have this out agents seem Supreme in Malley Briggs, The Court People suffering from quite promptly. 335, 341, 1092, 1096, 89 475 U.S. frequently suffer also from schizophrenia (1986), L.Ed.2d 271 further refined the disorders. split personality if term “reasonable” this context: “but competence officers of reasonable campus security officer notified a After disagree on this issue existence of President, [the kill the plot to Hunter them of a cause], recog- probable immunity should be Bryant find tried to out from and Jordan nized.” Image.” Bryant refused “Mr. more about Image.” identify To work from “Mr. California, Hill v. 401 U.S. S.Ct. premise, Bryant if opinion’s majority (1971), 28 L.Ed.2d 484 illustrates this Image” identify and saw with did not Hill, principle. police officers with why Bryant re- oppressor, him as his probable cause to arrest Archie Hill mis- in? The asked turn him luctant to Miller Hill him in- took and arrested own attitude toward the about They though Miller stead. did so even He also He refused answer. President. ardently produced Hill denied he was whether he intended to refused to state indicating identity. evidence his true Po- Reagan. Based on the to- harm President apartment lice then searched Hill’s incident presented tality the information Miller, arrest to the mistaken including slashing motions prosecution later used some of the evidence them— Bryant coupled his throat made across police seized to Hill after resolved convict by him that the President statements identity. the matter mistaken of Miller’s killed in Bonn”—Hunter “should been Supreme The Court dismissed Hill’s com- probable concluded and Jordan plaint that Miller’s arrest was without that and “Mr. Im- to believe following cause with the observa- age” deranged per- and the same were one helpful resolving tions that find including that his total behavior son and present case: constituted threat under section letter upshot good was that the officers Hill and faith believed Miller was arrest- law, they did not have to be Under They quite wrong ed him. were as it proof by preponder- even have certain or out, subjective good-faith turned be- evidence, just probable cause. ance of the justify lief would not itself either the majority opinion What the does not ade- subsequent arrest or the search. But quately recognize is that this is a standard probability, certainty, sufficient permits judgment, mistakes assum- the touchstone of reasonableness under that such is the case here. arguendo the Fourth Amendment and on the recognized that it is We have inevitable record before us the officers’ mistake enforcement officials will in law was understandable and the arrest a rea- reasonably mistakenly some cases response facing sonable to the situation present, cause is conclude them at the time. indicated that in such cases and we have police ... In these circumstances the other

those officials—like officials who were entitled to do what the law would ways they reasonably act in believe to be have allowed them to do if Miller had in personally held lia- lawful—should not be Hill, is, fact been search incident ble. The is true of their conclu- same to arrest and to seize evidence of the regarding exigent sions circumstances. police crime the cause to Creighton, Anderson v. believe Hill had committed. When 3034, 3039, (1987) judged 97 L.Ed.2d 523 in accordance with “the factual

729 jurisdiction every- the current of Secret Service practical considerations of pru- Agents: which reasonable the assassination of Senator Rob- day on life technicians, act,” men, legal during not Kennedy dent ert his bid to become Pres- States, 160, 338 U.S. Brinegar v. United Shortly ident of the United States. after 1310, 1302, L.Ed. 93 175 killed, 1879] Kennedy [69 Senator (1949), subsequent search the arrest and searched his assassin’s room without a under the reasonable and valid were incriminating and seized evidence warrant Fourth Amendment. later to convict him of murder. used Si- 803-05, at 1110-11 challenged admissibility 91 S.Ct. rhan Sirhan added). (emphasis appeal, this evidence on but the California Supreme challenge Court turned back his square me return for a moment Let analysis: with this deceptively sim- cause is a one. Probable complex concept. One ple description for a major presidential can- The victim was a exceedingly has called it “an commentator didate, and a crime of violence had al- 1 The fol- concept objectify.” difficult ready been committed him. The its na- lowing description captures elusive possi- crime thus involved far more than ture: bly Although idle threats. the officers principles of The contours and salient not have reasonable cause to believe did faithfully cat- probable cause have been that the house contained evidence of a of decisional law.... alogued a surfeit conspiracy prominent po- to assassinate emanate from cause does not Probable leaders, litical we believe the mere courtroom, library antiseptic a sterile an might such evi- possibility that there be adytum, pris- nor is it a a sacrosanct or fully in the house warranted the dence concept existing in a “philosophical tine officers’ actions. It is not difficult vacuum,” requires prag- but rather it envisage been the ef- have “everyday life on analysis of matic politi- nation if several more fect men, prudent not reasonable and which cal assassinations had followed that technicians, It is to viewed legal act.” Kennedy. Today when assassi- Senator prudent, vantage point of a from the persons prominence nations of reasonable, police officer on the cautious in this coun- repeatedly been committed guided by the arrest scene at the time of essential that law enforcement try, it is training. It is “a experience and his fast action in allowed to take officers be depends plastic concept whose existence such crimes. their endeavors to combat circumstances of on the facts and 710, 739, Sirhan, 497 7 Cal.3d People v. kaleido- case.” Because of the particular 385, 1121, 1140, 404 Cal.Rptr. 102 P.2d into the scopic myriad goes 947, denied, (1972), 410 cert. mix does a decision one “seldom (1973), 1382, L.Ed.2d 613 overruled 35 handily dispose of the next.” It is case Superi grounds, part on other Hawkins totality of these facts and however the 584, 7, Court, n. 586 P.2d 22 Cal.3d or is the relevant con- circumstances which 441 n. 7 Cal.Rptr. n. singly these factors sideration. Viewed (1978). dispositive, yet when viewed may not be present does not involve a That the ease puzzle may fit. in unison the not a reason completed crime of violence is Davis, 458 F.2d United States Sirhan; distinguish it is a reason to added) (citations (D.C.Cir.1972) (emphasis expect the Secret Service celebrate. We omitted). crimes, just fu- attend prevent these “pragmat- description uses the word This when occur. nerals making pro- describing the decision ic” emphasized the role court also The Davis goes the determination of cess that into special training of expertise means Exactly cause. what this in the determi- involving arresting plays officer case illustrated another best Arrest, Cook, Rev. Cause to 24 Vand.L. Probable This, course, though thinking warped cause. even nation Image” may have been someone else. spend good sense. We billions of makes special training providing for our dollars It was not unreasonable here for trained officers. What a waste if law enforcement agents of the conclude Secret Service to Here, rely on it. the Secret we do not similarly had a unstable unique special mission has a case, Service present As in their hands. when agents highly are its trained. police finally Kurbegovic, which arrested he certainly It be cautious before we second- did not admit he was Rasim. We should not uncommon for unstable individuals to decisions as to whether guess their field adopt nothing than identities that are more exists to believe someone is probable cause strange pseudonyms. President, especially in threatening sit- involving people. This disturbed uations agents away Should have walked through loud and clear in Sirhan. comes Bryant, leaving him to his own de- believing Image”? while he “Mr. vices present back to the case. brings us This attorney Even conceded in oral majority that respectfully I believe argument something that had to be done to summarily only too opinion dismisses — Why? monitor him. the recent Given his- discussing ego” the “alter theo- grudgingly leaders, tory of on our assaults would argument, and the ry government’s —the hardly “prudent” ig- have been belief, Bryant really that Mr. agents’ Bryant go way. him nored and let his own Image,” Their belief and vice versa. finally up in court? Not So who ends me as irrational. It re- not strike does just Bryant, agents. thing It is one me of a case illustrates minds expect agents of the Secret Service to dimensions of homicidal fan- unpredictable in front of throw themselves assassins’ bul- ego in the role of the alter tasies and willing- all lets. That is a known risk thought patterns. demented ly altogether incur. It is another to throw 1970s, early a madman In the named them in front of in cases like this. lawsuits City of Los An- Kurbegovic terrorized precisely This case is immu- geles.2 He fashioned headlines for his nity designed protect agents like detonating public places, bombs cause against: being Hunter and Jordan sued for Angeles including the Los International reasonably doing job. their lost, people Airport. Lives were were Measuring against all of this the control- extremely He dictated bizarre maimed. law, ling I reverse the denial public taped messages demanding to the claim, summary on this for sever- change. tapes He claimed on the social to al reasons. Rasim,” speaking first be “Esak as a field First, no case on the books this circuit “Symbionese commander of Liberation discusses the contours of cause to (“SLA”) later as Army” the “Chief make an arrest for a violation of section Military of “Aliens of America.” Officer” may “clearly not It one. estab Although vigorously in court— denied lished” authorities need being competent to tri- after found stand arrest, cause to make an but case has law Rasim” al—that he was “Esak and that he developed not or defined what constitutes do “Aliens of anything to with Amer- probable given cause situation. Cf. SLA, he, ica” or the it became clear that Reed, Capoeman v. 754 F.2d 1512 Kurbegovic, “Aliens of America.” Cir.1985). uniquely Because unsta fantasy. Similarly, This was his in the people who run afoul of ble section present case there was no real “Mr. Im- authority think this dearth of is relevant. age,” only Bryant; Image” Mr. and “Mr. Second, I believe for the reasons discussed only place, Bryant’s resided in one brain. earlier that the sense, Image” was “Mr. to arrest believe the letter terrifying Alphabet govic, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 2. The tale of the Bomber’s (1982). rampage People murderous is found in v. Kurbe- selectively.” them See or enforce with constituted his conduct coupled with Schuck, Suing very- P. Government At the the President. threat circumstances, should competence In these least, reasonable officials “officers Malley, always on the of caution. not err side disagree on this issue.” range duties a broad at at “[Officials swiftly and authority must often act quali- Third, it clear Malley makes deferred firmly the risk that action plainly “all but immunity protects fied abdica- or constitute will be futile virtual knowingly vio- those who incompetent or of office.” tion Jordan do Hunter and law.” Id. late message give that Today failed to under stan- we have unprotected qualify mag- a Bryant, they arrested due consideration. After dard. immunity— enjoys absolute

istrate —who case, I issue in this As to second him for to hold probable found analysis, but as majority’s agree him when United releasing days before primary question, dissent. to the judg- of his Attorney in exercise States Moreover, prosecute. not decided ment that either exists of evidence not a scintilla Leaving faith. acting in bad

agent was thus in the cold out and Jordan

Hunter immuni- purpose qualified

disserves we, judiciary, unseemly that

ty. It is immunity and in absolute ourselves

clothe hits. take the leave America, STATES UNITED professional- Fourth, Jordan Plaintiff-Appellant, Hunter and in the crimi- unique role discharged their ly they arrested process: justice nal Ryans Eugene RYANS Donald d/b/a system for the him the deposited Storage Moving and Westside & Maybe it out. figure of this lawyers to all Movers, Defendant-Appellee. not. maybe it was fantasy, harmless awas figment Image” Maybe 89-6096. No. Maybe Mr. imagination. Appeals, Court States trial. This incompetent to stand Tenth Circuit. out, agents. lawyers to sort upon us calls Supreme Court May 183, 196, 104 Scherer, Davis (1984), to 3012, 3020, 82 L.Ed.2d real world recognize the demands activity members exec-

measuring

utive branch: fair, policy, or sound always

Nor is stat- compliance with demand official money pain of regulation on

ute police offi-

damages. Such officials wardens, say nothing of prison or

cers only enjoy who executives

higher level routinely make close immunity, of the broad in the exercise

decisions delegated to necessarily is

authority that subject to are These officials

them. voluminous, rules, so “often

plethora of contradictory,

ambiguous, and comply only can flux that officials

such

Case Details

Case Name: James v. Bryant, Jr. v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, and Jeff Jordan Brian v. Hunter

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: May 18, 1990

Citation: 903 F.2d 717

Docket Number: 88-5889

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.