83 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 1996), 94-56307, Sherman v. Byrd

Docket Nº:94-56307.
Citation:83 F.3d 428
Party Name:Janet SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,and Richard Sears; Sandra Sears, Plaintiffs, v. Cois BYRD; Steven C. Bailey; John Horton; Don Anderson; Sheriff Andrews, Riverside County Sheriff; Guy Kestell; Allen Paine; Dave Pike; Steve Kollar; Ken Riding; John Boyd; Dan Borden; Winston Pingrey; Armando Portales; Gil Hayes; Bill Walsh; Dave Madden; Guy Benoit;
Case Date:April 24, 1996
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 428

83 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 1996)

Janet SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,and

Richard Sears; Sandra Sears, Plaintiffs,

v.

Cois BYRD; Steven C. Bailey; John Horton; Don Anderson; Sheriff Andrews, Riverside County Sheriff; Guy Kestell; Allen Paine; Dave Pike; Steve Kollar; Ken Riding; John Boyd; Dan Borden; Winston Pingrey; Armando Portales; Gil Hayes; Bill Walsh; Dave Madden; Guy Benoit; Stan Johnson; Mike Mott; Charles Varga; Thirty Unknown Named Riverside County Sheriff Department Officers, all sued in both their official and individual capacities; County of Riverside, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-56307.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 24, 1996

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted March 5, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV-90-03569-ER (GHKx); Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding.

C.D.Cal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Before: SKOPIL, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Janet Sherman appeals the district court's directed verdicts in favor of twenty-eight of the twenty-nine defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officers of the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department illegally searched her residence, used excessive force, and unreasonably detained her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court's directed verdicts in favor of defendant Bailey and the defendant supervisory officers on Sherman's search warrant claims, and the directed verdict in favor of defendant Pike. We reverse the district court's directed verdict in favor of defendants Bailey, Varga and Benoit on Sherman's unreasonable detention claim, however, because a reasonable jury could have concluded that the duration or conditions of Sherman's detention violated the Fourth Amendment.

We do not set forth all of the facts relevant to Sherman's claims because the parties are familiar with them. We review de novo the district court's directed verdicts in favor of the defendants. Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1994). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Sherman, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. Id. " 'If conflicting inferences may be drawn from the facts, the case must go to the jury.' " Pierce v. Multonomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Rutherford v. City of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1448 (9th Cir.1986)).

I. Sherman's Claim Against Defendant Bailey

Sherman argues that the district court erred in directing a verdict, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), in favor of defendant Bailey on her claim that Bailey knowingly included false statements in his affidavit, or did so with reckless disregard, and intentionally misled the magistrate to believe that no other persons besides Alexander resided on the premises.

We agree with the district court that there was no evidence that would permit a jury to find that Bailey submitted any false or misleading evidence, or that any information improperly was withheld. Bailey was not required to include all of the information in his possession in his application for the warrant. See United States v. Johns, 948 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1991) (failure to disclose existence of informant did not undermine finding of probable cause),cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1226 (1992). It is undisputed that the magistrate was aware that there were multiple buildings on the property, and that Bailey informed the magistrate about the CRI's statement that several armed persons besides Alexander resided on the property. Bailey's affidavit also included an attached copy...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP