Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno
918 F.3d 1031 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a civil rights claim unless their conduct violates a constitutional right that was "clearly established" at the time of the incident. A right is not clearly established if there is no binding precedent or a consensus of persuasive authority from other circuit courts on the specific constitutional question.
Facts:
- As part of an illegal gambling investigation, police officers Derik Kumagai, Curt Chastain, and Tomas Cantu of the City of Fresno obtained a search warrant for properties belonging to Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian.
- The warrant authorized the seizure of money and other valuables connected to illegal gambling.
- The officers executed the search warrant at three of Jessop and Ashjian's properties.
- Following the search, the officers provided Jessop and Ashjian with an inventory sheet stating that approximately $50,000 had been seized.
- Jessop and Ashjian alleged that the officers had actually seized $151,380 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins.
- Jessop and Ashjian claimed the officers stole the difference between the amount listed on the inventory sheet and the amount actually taken from their properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Fresno and several police officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- The defendant City Officers moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court (a federal trial court) granted the officers' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Appellants' claims.
- Jessop and Ashjian (Appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the City Officers as Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of qualified immunity shield police officers from civil liability for allegedly stealing property seized pursuant to a valid search warrant when, at the time of the incident, there was no binding precedent or consensus among circuit courts that such conduct violates the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.
Yes. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the alleged theft, the right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a valid warrant was not a clearly established right under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. The court exercised its discretion to bypass the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred and proceeded directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. It found that the law was not clearly established because there was no controlling authority from the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit, and there was a significant circuit split on the underlying constitutional question. The Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits had held that the continued retention of lawfully seized property does not violate the Fourth Amendment, while the Fourth Circuit held that theft of seized property does. This judicial disagreement demonstrates that the constitutional question was not 'beyond debate,' and therefore, the officers lacked the 'fair warning' required to strip them of qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the formidable power of the qualified immunity doctrine, particularly its 'clearly established' prong. The decision demonstrates that even when official conduct is patently illegal and morally reprehensible, such as theft, it may not give rise to constitutional liability if there is no specific, pre-existing judicial precedent on point. By highlighting a circuit split as definitive evidence that the law was not clearly established, the court reinforces a high bar for plaintiffs in § 1983 litigation and allows courts to avoid deciding novel and difficult constitutional questions.
