In Murchison v. County of Tehama, published October 4, 2021, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant officers. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff owned property at the end of a public road, which the plaintiff had blocked. When a real estate agent and a client went past the blockade, the plaintiff told them the road was closed. The client said he thought he saw something in the plaintiff's pocket that was possibly a handgun. The agent called the sheriff's department to confirm he had a legal right to use the road, and may have mentioned the handgun. The defendant officers determined that the plaintiff was a convicted felon who was prohibited from owning firearms, and believed the plaintiff had improperly blocked a public roadway. The officers did not obtain a warrant to search the plaintiff's property. An officer admitted they lacked probable cause to obtain a warrant at that time. Instead, the officers formulated a plan to approach the property in plainclothes, provoke the plaintiff into brandishing a firearm, then arrest him for owning a firearm. The plaintiff observed the officers enter his property, and called 911. The officers decided to leave, but then saw an unloaded rifle through the open door of the plaintiff's shop adjacent to his house. The officers again decided not to obtain a warrant, but instead walk toward the rifle. They acknowledged there was no emergency present. The plaintiff, believing he was being robbed, began running toward the rifle. The officers ran toward the rifle. An officer drew his weapon, identified himself as an officer, and ordered the plaintiff onto the ground. As the plaintiff began to comply, the other officer tackled him. The officers handcuffed the plaintiff and left him lying in the dirt. When they asked him about the rifle, the plaintiff informed the officers he had an expungement order he believed allowed him to own rifles. The officers confirmed the conviction had been expunged, removed the handcuffs, and left. The plaintiff sued the officers for conducting an illegal search for walking towards the shop and rifle, and using excessive force when they arrested him. He also asserted claims under the Bane Act and assault and battery.
The appellate court ruled that triable issues of fact defeated summary judgment because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officers violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and were not entitled to qualified immunity to the section 1983 claims. A reasonable jury could find that an officer violated the Fourth Amendment by leaving the public driveway and entering the plaintiff's curtilage before the plaintiff began running toward the rifle. Under those facts, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement would not apply. A reasonable jury could also find that the use of force was excessive, in light of evidence that the officers' earlier actions may have created the need for their use of force, their purpose of provoking the plaintiff to brandish a firearm, the relatively minor crime at issue, and the degree of force used. Regarding qualified immunity, the law clearly precluded entering the curtilage of the plaintiff's property without a warrant or exigent circumstances, and multiple cases have held that an officer's failure to identify himself can lead to the unnecessary and excessive application of force. Regarding the Bane Act claim, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the officers acted in reckless disregard to the plaintiff's constitutional rights, supporting a specific intent to violate the plaintiff's rights. Finally, a finding that the officers used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment would also support a claim for assault and battery by a police officer.
Leave a Reply