Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley
46 F.4th 1124 (2022)
Rule of Law:
While a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by searching a location not physically described in a warrant, even with a judge's oral approval, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established at the time that such a search constituted a constitutional violation, particularly in novel factual circumstances where direct precedent is lacking.
Facts:
- In August 2016, Officer Bryan Lawrence pulls over a truck in a drug trafficking area and finds a handgun, marijuana, and meth residue.
- John Ray Soriano, Richard Manriquez's nephew, is arrested from the truck and found with a key to Room #1 of the Copper Mountain Motel.
- Officer Joel Ensley obtains a telephonically authorized search warrant for Room #1 of the Copper Mountain Motel, suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking.
- The search of the motel room yields small quantities of marijuana, a meth shard, a scale, and other drug paraphernalia.
- Officer Ensley calls the judge who issued the initial warrant and requests permission to 'amend' the search warrant to include Soriano's 'primary residence,' a house he shares with Manriquez.
- The judge orally grants permission to 'amend it' and states it is 'fine' for it to 'still serve that right now as one continuous search warrant.'
- No officer physically amends the search warrant to include Manriquez's home before searching it.
- Officers search Manriquez's home, where they uncover a digital scale with white residue and a meth pipe.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Manriquez filed a civil action against the Town of Superior and four police officers, including Officers Lawrence and Ensley, alleging three 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for damages under the Fourth Amendment in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The district court granted qualified immunity to some parties on some claims.
- The district court denied qualified immunity to Officers Lawrence and Ensley on Count II, Manriquez’s illegal search claim, finding the warrant facially invalid and the particularity requirement clearly established.
- Officers Lawrence and Ensley (defendants-appellants) appealed the denial of qualified immunity to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment and is that right 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes when the officer searches a home based on a judge's oral authorization to expand the scope of a search warrant, but fails to physically amend the warrant to include the new location?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Lee
Yes, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by searching Manriquez's home with a facially defective warrant that did not list the location to be searched, but No, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a warrant to 'particularly describ[e] the place to be searched,' a requirement that protects property owners by interposing judicial judgment and providing a basis for challenge. The warrant, as written, listed only the motel room, not Manriquez's home, and a reasonable officer should have noticed this deficiency. A facially deficient warrant cannot be salvaged merely because a judge authorized the search or the search did not exceed the judge's intent, as the text of the Fourth Amendment is paramount. The court held that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on this facially deficient warrant. However, for qualified immunity, the right must be 'clearly established' such that any reasonable official would have understood they were violating it. This case is factually distinguishable from Groh v. Ramirez, where the warrant was never valid because it never listed the items to be seized and officers did not obtain subsequent judicial approval. Here, the original warrant was valid, and the judge did orally approve the expansion to include Manriquez's home. A reasonable officer could have believed, based on the lack of direct case law at the time, that executing a court-authorized search was permissible given the judge's oral approval, even if they made a ministerial error by not physically amending the warrant.
Partial concurrence and partial dissent - Judge Otake
Yes, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Manriquez’s home with a warrant that described a different location, and No, they are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement was plain and clearly established, meaning any reasonable officer would have understood the failure to include the place to be searched on the warrant was constitutionally fatal. The Fourth Amendment explicitly requires warrants to 'particularly describ[e] the place to be searched.' A warrant is 'facially deficient' if it fails to particularize the place to be searched, rendering it invalid. Any officer at Manriquez's home would have recognized the warrant only authorized a search of a motel room on a different street. The Supreme Court's decision in Groh v. Ramirez is indistinguishable; in Groh, a warrant failed to describe the items to be seized, which was deemed a 'glaring deficiency' that any reasonable officer would have known was 'constitutionally fatal.' Similarly here, the warrant completely omitted a constitutionally mandated description (the place to be searched). The initial validity of the warrant for the motel room is immaterial to its deficiency regarding Manriquez's home. Furthermore, interpreting the facts most favorably to Manriquez, the conversation with Judge Bravo suggests the judge expected the officers to physically amend the warrant before serving it at the new location, rather than serving it without amendment. The officers relied on the judge's approval to amend but took no action to make the warrant constitutionally compliant.
Analysis:
This case highlights the tension between a strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement and the 'clearly established law' prong of qualified immunity. It reinforces that officers can be shielded from liability even when they commit a constitutional violation if the specific contours of that right were not definitively established by prior precedent, especially in factually unique scenarios. The ruling provides some latitude for officers who obtain oral judicial approval for warrant modifications, but also underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to written warrant procedures to avoid such violations.
