CROWE v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
593 F.3d 841 (2010)
Michael CROWE; Stephen Crowe; Cheryl A. Crowe; Judith Ann Kennedy; Shannon Crowe, a Minor, through guardian ad litem Stephan Crowe; Zachary Treadway; Joshua David Treadway; Michael Lee Treadway; Tammy Treadway; Janet Haskell; Margaret Susan Houser; Christine Huff; Gregg Houser; Aaron Houser, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; The City of Oceanside; Chris McDonough; Gary Hoover; Summer Stephan; Lawrence Blum; City of Escondido; National Institute for Truth Verification; Rick Bass, Defendants, and
Mark Wrisley; Barry Sweeney; Ralph Claytor; Phil Anderson, Defendants-Appellants.
Michael Crowe; Stephen Crowe; Cheryl A. Crowe, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Shannon Crowe, a minor, through guardian ad litem, Stephan Crowe, Plaintiff-Appellant, and
Judith Ann Kennedy, Plaintiff,
Zachary Treadway; Joshua David Treadway; Michael Lee Treadway; Tammy Treadway; Janet Haskell; Margaret Susan Houser; Christine Huff; Gregg Houser; Aaron Houser, Plaintiffs,
v.
County Of San Diego; The City of Oceanside; Chris McDonough; Gary Hoover; Summer Stephan; Lawrence Blum; City of Escondido; National Institute for Truth Verification; Rick Bass, Defendants, and
Mark Wrisley; Barry Sweeney; Ralph Claytor; Phil Anderson, Defendants-Appellees.
Stephen Crowe; Cheryl Crowe; Judith Ann Kennedy; Shannon Crowe, a minor through their guardian ad litem, Stephen Crowe; Zachary Treadway; Joshua David Treadway; Michael Lee Treadway; Tammy Treadway; Janet Haskell, Plaintiffs,
Christine Huff, Plaintiff, and
Margaret Susan Houser; Gregg Houser; Aaron Houser, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
County Of San Diego; Mark Wrisley; Barry Sweeney; Ralph Claytor; City of Escondido; Phillip Anderson; Summer Stephan; Rick Bass, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.
Michael Crowe; Stephen Crowe; Cheryl A. Crowe; Judith Ann Kennedy; Shannon Crowe, a minor, through guardian ad litem Stephen Crowe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
Zachary Treadway; Joshua David Treadway; Michael Lee Treadway; Tammy Treadway; Janet Haskell; Margaret Susan Houser; Christine Huff; Gregg Houser; Aaron Houser, Plaintiffs,
v.
County Of San Diego; The City Of Oceanside; Chris Mcdonough; Gary Hoover; Summer Stephan; Lawrence Blum; City Of Escondido; National Institute For Truth Verification; Rick Bass; Mark Wrisley; Barry Sweeney; Ralph Claytor; Phil Anderson, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 05-55467, 05-56364, 05-55542, 05-56311.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 1, 2008.
Filed January 14, 2010.
Amended January 27, 2010.
Milton J. Silverman (argued), Robert T. Geile, Law Office of Milton J. Silverman; attorneys for plaintiffs-appellants and Cross-Appellees Michael Crowe, Stephen Crowe, Cheryl Crowe, and Shannon Crowe.
Jon R. Williams (argued), Lindsay J. Reese, Ross, Dixon & Bell; Dennis A. Schoville, Louis G. Arnell, James S. Iagmin, Schoville & Arnell; attorneys for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees Aaron Houser, Margaret Susan Houser, and Gregg Houser.
John J. Sansone, County Counsel, County of San Diego, George W. Brewster Jr. (argued), Senior Deputy; attorneys for defendant-appellant Summer Stephan.
Richard J. Schneider, Glnar J. Fozi, Daley & Heft; Steven J. Renick (argued), Manning & Marder, Kass Ellrod, Ramirez; attorneys for defendants-appellees and Cross-Appellants City of Escondido, Mark Wrisley, Barry Sweeney, Ralph Claytor, and Phil Anderson.
Diana L. Field, Ferguson, Praet & Sherman; Timothy T. Coates, Cynthia T. Tobisman, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland; attorneys for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants City of Oceanside, Oceanside Police Department, and Christopher McDonough.
Kenneth H. Moreno, Scott J. Loeding, Murchinson & Cumming; attorneys for defendant-appellee Lawrence N. Blum, Ph.D.
Before: STEPHEN S. TROTT, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINIONORDERThe opinion filed on January 14, 2010, 2010 WL 114956, is hereby amended as follows. The paragraph beginning at the bottom of Slip. Op. page 1115 and continuing onto page 1116 is to be deleted and the following inserted.
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to: (1) Michael and Aaron's Fifth Amendment claims; (2) Michael and Aaron's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims; (3) all otherwise surviving Fourth Amendment claims against McDonough; (4) all otherwise surviving claims against Blum; (5) the Crowes' deprivation of familial companionship claim based on Michael's detention; (6) the Housers' deprivation of familial companionship claim based on Aaron's detention; and (7) all otherwise surviving claims against the Cities of Escondido and Oceanside. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as to: (1) Aaron's Fourth Amendment claim that police lacked probable cause to arrest him; (2) Michael's Fourth Amendment claim that police lacked probable cause to arrest him; (3) Michael's claim that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching him; (4) Aaron's Fourth Amendment claim that the warrants authorizing the search of his home were not supported by sufficient probable cause; (5) the conspiracy claims against McDonough; (6) Michael and Aaron's defamation claims against Stephan; and (7) Aaron's defamation claim against Blum. Additionally, we affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment as to: (1) Cheryl, Stephen, and Shannon Crowes' claims that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching them; (2) Cheryl and Stephen's Fourth Amendment claims that the warrant authorizing police to draw blood samples was not supported by probable cause; (3) Cheryl and Stephen's Fourth Amendment claims of wrongful detention; and (4) the Crowes' deprivation of familial companionship claims based on the placement of Michael and Shannon in protective custody. We remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
OPINIONTHOMAS, Circuit Judge:
1. This was the same door Officer Walters saw close the night before.
2. Michael was photographed in only his underwear. Stephen was photographed completely nude. Cheryl was photographed without her underwear. Shannon was photographed without a bra.
3. The Polinksy Children's Center is a 24-hour facility for the temporary emergency shelter of children who must be separated from their families for their own safety, or when parents can not provide care.
4. Detective Han was not named as a defendant in this action.
5. Aaron had a collection of knives. His mother had reported to the police earlier that day that she noticed that one of his knives was missing.
6. Although the Treadways were parties in the district court, they are not parties to this appeal.
7. Under California law, when a minor is taken into custody by a police officer, he must be released within 48 hours from the time of his apprehension, unless within that time a petition is filed in the juvenile court or a criminal complaint is filed with a court of competent jurisdiction explaining why the minor should be declared a ward of the court. See Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 631. Such a hearing is called a "Dennis H. Hearing." See In re Dennis H.,19 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, 96 Cal.Rptr. 791 (Cal.App.1971). 8. The record is unclear as to when Michael was incarcerated.
9. A "707 Hearing" is held to determine whether a minor should be tried in juvenile or adult court. See Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 707.
10. Tuite's clothing had apparently been examined previously in April of 1998, but visual inspections did not detect any blood on Tuite's red shirt.
11. Michael, Stephen, Cheryl, Judith Ann, and Shannon Crowe; Aaron, Margaret Susan, and Gregg Houser; and Joshua David, Zachary, Michael Lee, and Tammy Treadway.
12. Part II of Justice Souter's opinion, which was the only part of any of the six opinions joined by a majority of the Court, held that Martinez might be able to pursue a claim for violation of his substantive due process rights and remanded on that issue.
13. See infra Part VIII.B for discussion of the claims against Blum.
14. Michael additionally argues that the use of his statements at Tuite's trial creates a cause of action. This argument has no merit because Michael's liberty was neither infringed nor threatened by the use of his statements in Tuite's trial.
15. Aaron was interrogated on his fifteenth birthday.
16. Cooper was interrogated once for four hours. Cooper, 963 F.2d at 1237. Michael was interrogated four times and Aaron was interrogated twice, each for over 10 hours.
17. There is some dispute among the parties regarding whether Stephanie's body was actually in the doorway—preventing the door from being closed—at 4:30 a.m. However, given that her body was in that position when paramedics and police arrived a couple hours later and no one seems to have clearly stated at the time that someone moved the body, a reasonable police officer certainly could have believed that Stephanie's body was in that position from the time she died until the time she was discovered the next morning.
18. There was also no sign of forced entry, but this fact is largely negated by the fact that at least some doors and windows to the house were unlocked.
19. The district court concluded that this part of Joshua's February 10, 1998 statement was uncoerced. Id. at 1083. Michael and Aaron have not challenged this finding.
20. Here we exercise the discretion given in the Supreme Court's recent decision, Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), to decide the issue of whether the violation was clearly established without deciding whether there was actually a violation in the case. 21. Defendants have not disputed this finding on appeal.
22. Michael additionally argues that he was too young to consent to a strip search. However, he cites no authority suggesting that a 14-year-old cannot consent to a strip search and we are aware of none.
23. Defendants argue that the correct standard is whether defendants' conduct "shocked the conscience." There is no support in the relevant case law for this assertion. The standard for deprivation of familial companionship is "unwarranted interference," not conduct which "shocks the conscience." See Lee, 250 F.3d at 686; Fontana, 818 F.2d at 1418.
24. As an initial matter, Stephan argues that Michael and Aaron waived their claims as to any statement not specifically discussed in the Crowe brief. This argument misses the point of the boys' argument on this issue. The boys did not claim that Stephan made several, separately actionable, defamatory statements. Rather, they claim that her statements during the interview, taken as a whole, communicate the defamatory statement that the boys killed Stephanie. The boys have not waived any portion of their defamation claims against Stephan.
25. Plaintiffs do not allege that Stephan explicitly stated that the boys killed Stephanie, nor does the transcript of the interview contain any such explicit statement.
26. The specific statements are detailed in the district court opinion. See Crowe I, 303 F.Supp.2d at 1105-09.