Liston v. County of Riverside

Decision Date09 October 1997
Docket Number94-56615,Nos. 94-56584,s. 94-56584
Citation120 F.3d 965
Parties97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5742, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9229 Jimmy LISTON; Venice Liston; Danny Liston; Andrew Liston; Elishia Liston, minors, by and through their Guardian ad Litem, Jim Liston, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision of the State of California; David Pike; D. Podkowa, Defendants-Appellees, and Paul Amicone, Police Officer; Bart Belknap, Deputy; Gail Marianes, Deputy; John Powell, Deputy; Robert Pruitt; Danny Scaturro, Detective; Raymond Rucker, Lieutenant; Tom Mitchell, Police Officer; Darrell Reed, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Devonne L. Daley, Klass, Helman & Ross, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

Marcus M. Kerner, Assistant United States Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee David Pike.

Ann M. Maurer, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Paul Amicone, et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Gary L. Taylor, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-0488-GLT.

Before: REINHARDT, HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT and Judge HALL; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge (except as to Section B.3); CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge (as to Section B.3).

Early in the morning on March 29, 1991, law enforcement officers armed with a search warrant raided a small, single-story private residence at 8293 Saddlecreek Drive, Glen Avon, California. The intended target of the search was James "Rocky" Hill, whom investigators believed to be involved in a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network. Unfortunately, for everyone involved, at the time the warrant was executed Hill no longer resided at the Saddlecreek Drive address. Plaintiffs-appellants, Jim and Venice Liston, had bought the house from him and, with their three minor children, Danny, Andrew, and Elishia, had moved into it three days earlier. According to the Listons, the officers who conducted the search broke down the front door with a battering ram, tackled and injured Jim Liston, ransacked the house and yard, willfully destroying property, and detained the entire family for approximately an hour and a half, well beyond the time when it had become apparent that they had made a serious mistake.

The Listons brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens, 1 and state law, alleging constitutional deprivations resulting from the conduct of the officers in obtaining and executing the search warrant. A number of individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court first granted summary judgment as to all moving officers, excluding Federal Task Force Officer David Pike, and subsequently granted summary judgment in Pike's favor as well. The Listons appeal from both of the orders. Because we conclude that genuine issues of material fact preclude an award of summary judgment to most of the defendant officers, we reverse as to them, affirm as to the others, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I. FACTS

A. Obtaining the Warrant

Beginning approximately in December of 1989, officers from several law enforcement agencies, under the control of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, formed a joint narcotics task force and began an investigation into a large-scale methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network in the San Bernardino and Riverside counties area. This extensive investigation, covering a wide geographical area and involving numerous suspects, continued into March of 1991. Relying on information obtained by the task force, Magistrate Judge Charles Eick issued a warrant on March 26, 1991, authorizing officers to search thirteen separate locations, including 8293 Saddlecreek Drive.

Defendant Danny Scaturro, a senior deputy with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, served as lead investigator on the task force. In that capacity, he was responsible for obtaining and compiling information from all other team members. In addition, it was Deputy Scaturro who prepared the affidavit and the request for the search warrant at issue in this case. The task force had linked Hill to the methamphetamine network through direct officer surveillance, financial records, and the reports of a number of citizen informants. Accordingly, Scaturro's warrant application sought authorization to search 8293 Saddlecreek Drive, the address at which Hill resided during at least some portion of the time in question. 2 In his affidavit, Deputy Scaturro offered the following evidence linking Hill to the Saddlecreek Drive address:

Through utility records, surveillance conducted [sic] members of my team, and through Department of Motor Vehicles [sic], I have determined that JAMES ROCKY HILL lives at 8293 Saddle Creek Drive, Glen Avon, California. HILL has been followed from Highland Towing to this location on several occasions, and have [sic] also been followed from this location to Highland Towing.

The affidavit contains no further information linking 8293 Saddlecreek Drive to the activities under investigation by the task force, and provides no dates on which any of the investigative activities or observations set forth above occurred.

According to the declaration he submitted in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, at some point prior to preparing and presenting the warrant application Deputy Scaturro drove by the Saddlecreek residence in order to verify the address and to get a description of the premises to guide the officers executing the search. 3 Scaturro included the following description in his search warrant affidavit:

This is a single story residence located on the south side of Saddle Creek Drive, southwest of the intersection with Galena Street. The structure is further described as being tan in color with blue trim and having a brown in color composition shingle roof. The number "8293" are stenciled on the curb in front of the residence in four inch high black letters on a white background. The front door is oriented toward the north and is directly to the left of an attached two-car garage. The front of the garage is finished in imitation stone that is tan in color.

The Listons, in the declarations they filed in opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions, contend that a "large and typical real estate 'for sale' sign," had been posted on the lawn for at least ninety days before they moved into their new home. The Listons further assert that for at least thirty days before they moved in, a "Sold" sign was affixed to the "For Sale" sign. Scaturro did not mention either the "For Sale" sign or the attached "Sold" sign in the affidavit that accompanied the warrant application. In his subsequent summary judgment declaration, Scaturro admitted that while he was at the Saddlecreek address, he observed a "For Sale" sign in the front yard. However, he rejected entirely the Listons' contention that there was a "Sold" sign: "I also observed a 'For Sale' sign in the front of the residence, but there was no 'Sold' notice on it." On March 26, the same day on which Jim and Venice Liston and their three minor children moved into their new home at 8293 Saddlecreek Drive, after a lengthy escrow period that commenced when the escrow was opened in mid-December, Magistrate Judge Eick issued the search warrant.

B. Executing the Warrant

According to evidence offered by the defendants in their declarations and not disputed by the Listons, on the morning of March 29, 1991, Federal Task Force Officer David Pike attended a briefing session at the San Bernardino Sheriff's office concerning the drug enforcement operation that was about to commence. At the session, Pike was given a copy of the search warrant for 8293 Saddlecreek Drive and was assigned to execute the warrant. More important for present purposes, at the briefing Pike was provided with information regarding the intended target of the search, James Rocky Hill. He was informed that Hill was connected to a methamphetamine drug trafficking and precursor chemical brokering operation throughout San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. According to his declaration, Pike was further informed that Hill "was a very violent individual, that he had posed as an FBI Agent, he was armed a majority of the time, there was information that he would resist being taken into custody, and that he may shoot it out with police." 4

When the search team--which, according to the investigation report filed later, consisted of fifteen officers--arrived at the Saddlecreek residence shortly after 7:00 a.m., Agent Pike knocked on the door, announced the police presence, and demanded entry. He waited about a minute and then knocked again and repeated his announcement. Pike reports in his declaration that he "heard a male voice from behind the door say that he had to get a key and would be back." Pike asserts that he "thought the person behind the door was James Rocky Hill and that he was arming himself against us as had been detailed to us in our briefing." At that point, Pike ordered Detective Paul Amicone to break down the door with a battering ram. 5

The officers assert that they were met by a single adult male standing inside the residence near the door dressed in running shorts and a T-shirt. Pike contends that this figure matched the physical description he had of James Rocky Hill. As Pike describes it, he then ordered the man to get down on the floor and "[w]hile on the floor officers handcuffed him." Neither Pike nor any of the other defendants who submitted declarations as evidence offer any suggestion as to who exactly was involved or what occurred between the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
431 cases
  • Bradford v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 4 Abril 2008
    ...force cases should be granted sparingly." Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 976 n. 10 (9th Cir.1997) (as amended) (collecting cases)). This is because such cases almost always turn on credibility determinations that are t......
  • Duncan v. City of San Diego, Case No.: 17-cv-52-BTM-MDD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 5 Agosto 2019
    ...of qualified immunity is not appropriate once a plaintiff has made out a judicial deception claim." (citing Liston v. Cnty. Of Riverside , 120 F.3d 965, 972 (9th Cir. 1997) ; and Hervey v. Estes , 65 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 1995) )); Butler v. Elle , 281 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[N......
  • S.T. v. City of Ceres
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 30 Agosto 2018
    ...quotation marks omitted)."[T]he reasonableness of force used is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury." Liston v. County of Riverside , 120 F.3d 965, 976 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1997). "Because the excessive force inquiry nearly always requires a jury to sift through disputed factual contentio......
  • Pac. Marine Ctr. Inc. v. Silva
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 18 Agosto 2011
    ...determines whether the affidavit, once corrected and supplemented, establishes probable cause. See, e.g., Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 973-74 (9th Cir. 1997). In Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit concluded that a warrant application'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Bearing false witness: perjured affidavits and the Fourth Amendment.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 3, June 2008
    • 22 Junio 2008
    ...996 F.2d 1490, 1504 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Burke v. Town of Walpole, 403 F.3d 66, 82 (1st Cir. 2005); Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965, 972-73 (9th Cir. 1997); Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569, 573-74 (2d Cir. 1994). Indeed, some courts, strictly adhering to the objective reasonab......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT