9th Circuit 4th Amendment jurisprudence in action: Blight v City Manteca

Whether one practices criminal law or 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, one area to always keep an eye on is the law surrounding search warrants. Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that touched upon probable cause for a warrant, reasonableness of the search, and duration during a search. In Blight v. City Manteca, et al., 944 F. 3d 1061 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2019), a unanimous panel upheld summary judgment for the defendants. The court found probable cause, reasonable search, and reasonable duration of plaintiff's search-related detention. It found, as a matter of law, that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.

Facts

In September 2014, two Manteca Police Department detectives met with a confidential informant (the informant's identity remains confidential). The informant, who previously provided reliable information on marijuana grows, gave the detectives firsthand knowledge of a drug operation in rural San Joaquin County run by Marlin Lee Ford. The informant had known Ford for more than a decade (from the informant's activities in the marijuana industry); personally assisted in the operation on Ford's property; and knew where the property was located and could describe it in detail.

The detectives corroborated Ford's address, noting from DMV records and a police database that he lived at 5858 East Carpenter Road. The detectives visited that property twice (once with the informant). Both times they stayed on the street, noticing, among other things: a long driveway leading to the property, a locked gate at the front of the driveway, and a fence upwards of 10 feet high enclosing the entire property. The fence precluded a view inside of the property, but looking at the land on Google Maps, the informant identified two residences on the land, who lived where, and the field growing the marijuana.

One of the detectives ultimately submitted a search warrant for judicial review, detailing the informant's statements and attaching the Google Maps view of the property. That detective also attested to his knowledge, training and experience regarding marijuana grows. The warrant application specified the search of both homes on the land. The state court judge approved the search warrant.

Due to the fortifications of the property, as well as anticipated guns and dogs, Manteca SWAT officers executed the warrant. The SWAT team breached the locked gate, approached the two homes, and made announcements. One of Ford's assistants (Serrano) exited the main house.

With no one exiting the second home (a mobile home), the SWAT team made announcements for another six minutes. Still no one exited. They proceeded to breach the front door and wait another three minutes. Eventually Joanne Blight exited the residence. She was detained for 30-60 minutes while the police department executed the search warrant. She was never physically searched or handcuffed during this time. She was then released.

Post-incident, officers learned the mobile home had its own assigned address, 5846 East Carpenter Road.

District Court Proceedings

Plaintiff Joanne Blight filed suit in the Eastern District of California. She alleged various federal and state-law claims. The Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim included: overbreadth (e.g., lack of probable cause to search the mobile home); lack of particularity in the warrant; improper "knock-notice" before entering the mobile home; improper execution of the warrant; and excessive duration of her detention.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which District Judge William B. Shubb granted on all federal claims. Judge Shubb rejected Blight's arguments, finding probable cause to search the mobile home, particularity in the warrant, sufficient knock-notice, and a reasonable detention. The district court also rejected Blight's so-called "judicial deception" allegations, which were based upon information not included in the warrant application.

9th Circuit

Blight appealed on three issues: probable cause for the search warrant; scope of the executed search; and the duration of the plaintiff's detention.

In a published opinion, the panel unanimously affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding probable cause, reasonable scope, and reasonable detention.

On probable cause, the court found a basis to search the entire parcel, "[b]ased on the informant's reliability and the probability that probative evidence or contraband would be found in the residences on the property."

On warrant execution, the panel explained that "probable cause to search the mobile home did not depend on Serrano living there. Instead, the officers had probable cause to continue the search because they could still reasonably believe that the entire property was suspect and that the property was still under Ford's common control, regardless of whether he was on the property at the time of the search, and regardless of who was found in the mobile home." The court was not persuaded by Blight's argument that the search was improper because Serrano happened to be found in the main home, as opposed to the mobile home.

On the Blight's detention, the court noted that "age does not make [a] detention per se unreasonable." It further observed that Blight "was never personally searched or interrogated and that she was detained for the duration of the search -- no longer than one hour -- which is not an unreasonable length of time given the circumstances."

The court squarely rejected various judicial deception arguments, finding no materiality to the state-court's finding of probable cause.

Conclusion

Blight offers guidance on many questions, including: "When can law enforcement utilize an informant for a search warrant?" and "How is judicial deception analyzed?" 