Bonivert v. City of Clarkston

Decision Date26 February 2018
Docket NumberNo. 15-35292,15-35292
Citation883 F.3d 865
Parties Ryan J. BONIVERT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF CLARKSTON; County of Asotin, Washington; Gary Snyder; Joseph Snyder; Jennifer L. Snyder ; Shawn Rudy, Deputy; Grimm, Deputy; Paul Purcell ; Teresa R. Purcell; Daniel Combs ; Claudia A. Combs, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

James E. Lobsenz (argued), Carney Badley Spellman P.S., Seattle, Washington, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Christopher Joseph Kerley (argued), Evans Craven & Lackie P.S., Spokane, Washington, for DefendantAppellee City of Clarkston.

Ann Elizabeth Trivett (argued) and Thomas P. Miller, Christie Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for DefendantsAppellees County of Asotin, Gary Snyder, Joseph Snyder, Jennifer L. Snyder, Shawn Rudy, Deputy Grimm, Paul Purcell, Teresa R. Purcell, Daniel Combs, and Claudia A. Combs.

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges, and Barbara Jacobs Rothstein,* District Judge.

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

"An open door says, ‘Come in,’ " the poet Carl Sandburg once wrote. "If a door is open and you want it open, why shut it?"1 The corollary, of course, is that a locked door says, "stay out," and a shut door certainly does not say, "come in."

This appeal arises out of a domestic dispute call to the police from the home of Ryan Bonivert. During an evening gathering with friends, Bonivert reportedly argued with his girlfriend, Jessie Ausman, when she attempted to leave with the couple's nine-month old daughter. By the time police arrived, the disturbance was over: Ausman, the baby, and the guests had safely departed the home, leaving Bonivert alone inside. At that point, there was no indication that Bonivert had a weapon or posed a danger to himself or others. Nor does the record suggest that Ausman intended to reenter the house or otherwise asked police to accompany her inside. When Bonivert failed to respond to repeated requests to come to the door, the officers decided they needed to enter the house. No attempt was made to obtain a search warrant. Though Bonivert locked the door to his house and refused police entreaties to talk with them, the police broke a window to unlock and partially enter the back door. Even then, Bonivert tried to shut the door, albeit unsuccessfully. Although Ausman consented to the officers entering the house, Bonivert's actions were express—stay out. Nevertheless, the officers forced their way in, throwing Bonivert to the ground, and then drive-stunned him with a taser several times,2 handcuffed him, and arrested him.

The scenario here closely parallels Georgia v. Randolph , 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), where the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search was unreasonable as to a defendant who is physically present and expressly refuses consent to entry. Id. at 106, 126 S.Ct. 1515. Following the Court's reasoning, we conclude that the warrantless entry into Bonivert's home violated the Fourth Amendment as none of the lawful exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of January 8, 2012, Sergeant Danny Combs and Officer Paul Purcell of the City of Clarkston, Washington (the "City") Police Department received a "physical domestic" dispatch to the home of Ryan Bonivert. The dispatcher relayed to the officers that an argument between a man and a woman had become "physical at one point," and that the dispatcher had been "advised the male," Bonivert, "was inside the house being restrained by other males," and "the female," Bonivert's girlfriend Jessie Ausman, was "outside in a car with a child."

When Purcell and Combs arrived, they encountered five people standing in front of Bonivert's house: Ausman; Ausman's sister, Tasha; Ausman's mother, Ann McCann; James Gray; and Brad Miller. Purcell spoke to the three women, who reported that the entire group, including Bonivert, had been at a social gathering in the house. Bonivert and Ausman, who had a nine-month old daughter and had been living together in Bonivert's home for the past two years, began arguing about their relationship when Ausman announced that she was leaving with the baby. Bonivert reportedly became angry. According to the women, Bonivert grabbed Ausman and threw her to the ground. Ausman further told the officers that all of the adults in the residence had been drinking that evening.

Combs, meanwhile, interviewed Gray and Miller. Both men told Combs that in the middle of an argument, Ausman had told Bonivert that she was leaving with the baby. According to Gray and Miller, Bonivert warned Ausman she was not leaving with the child and attempted to "rush[ ]" her, but Miller tackled Bonivert before he could make contact, enabling Ausman to safely exit the house with the baby. The only difference in Gray and Miller's version of events and that of the women was that neither saw "anything physical" occur between Bonivert and Ausman. Bonivert later stated that after Ausman and his guests had departed, he decided to go to bed. Bonivert remained inside the house during the entirety of the officers' conversations with the witnesses.

The officers exchanged narratives and, after discussing the discrepancies between the men and women's stories, decided to speak to Bonivert. The officers initially approached the front door of the residence, knocked, identified themselves as police, and instructed Bonivert to come to the door. Combs testified that he believed—but was uncertain whether—Bonivert heard the initial knock-and-announce. Bonivert testified that he heard yelling and loud banging on the front door, but did not know who was there or what was being said.

Receiving no response from Bonivert, Combs knocked on other doors and windows of the house, peering into the windows using his flashlight. The officers found that both the front door and the back door were locked. As Combs approached the side door, Bonivert realized it was unlocked and locked the deadbolt from inside. Combs, upon hearing the door lock, believed that Bonivert did not want to speak or have any contact with him. After Bonivert locked the side door, he heard someone outside announce that they were police and ask him to come outside. Purcell testified that at some point, Combs yelled loudly, "Come out or we are coming in," or words to that effect. Bonivert, however, made no attempt to speak to the officers.

The officers went back to the front of the house to question the witnesses again. In response to an inquiry whether Bonivert was a danger to himself, Ausman informed Combs that there were no weapons in the home. Ausman also told police that she did not believe Bonivert was a danger to himself. When the officers inquired how Bonivert would respond to having his home broken into, Ausman warned Combs that Bonivert had a problem with authority and recounted Bonivert's angry—but not violent—behavior towards officers during a recent drunk driving arrest.

At this point, Combs decided he needed to assess Bonivert's condition. Combs claims he wanted to "find out what was going on, to assess [Bonivert]" and "see what his state of mind were [sic]." According to Combs, he was concerned by the fact that Bonivert was "not talking to" the officers. Ausman, who had been living in Bonivert's home for approximately two years, gave Sergeant Combs permission to enter the house. The parties dispute whether Ausman also gave permission for Combs to break a door or window to gain entry. Nothing in the record suggests, however, that Ausman intended to reenter the home or asked Combs for his assistance to do so.

Combs and Purcell requested assistance from the Asotin County Sheriff's Office (the "County").3 The officers also radioed a "Code 4" message to the County, which meant that "there are no problems" with "the police and the people they are with," and that everyone is "safe" and nobody is "being injured."

Upon arrival, Asotin County Deputies Gary Snyder and Joseph Snyder spoke with Combs, who told them that Bonivert was locked inside the residence and refused to come out after a physical encounter with his wife. Combs requested their assistance to enter the house. The County deputies were aware that the City officers did not have a warrant to enter the home or arrest Bonivert. They did not obtain information about who owned the residence, who lived at the residence, whether there were outstanding arrests, or what basis the City officers had for entering the home. Instead, the County deputies deferred to Combs, the highest ranking City officer on the scene.

The officers collectively developed a plan of entry. Purcell remained stationed at the front door, on the east side of the residence, while Combs and the County deputies went around to the north side of the residence. Combs again knocked on the side and back doors, identified himself as the police, and advised Bonivert to open the door. Combs and Gary Snyder directed their flashlights through the windows and saw Bonivert retreat into the back of the house. On at least one occasion when a flashlight beam hit Bonivert, he ducked out of sight. Combs then approached the back door, with Joseph Snyder directly behind him and Gary Snyder standing farther back to maintain visibility of the front door.

Combs used his flashlight to shatter a window pane on the back door and reached through the opening to unlock it. At that point, Bonivert opened the door and began shouting that the officers were going to pay for the damage to his window. Combs stated that he ordered Bonivert to stay back, calm down, and get on the ground. Joseph Snyder similarly ordered Bonivert to get on the ground and show his hands. Bonivert disputed that he was given these commands and stated that there were flashlights pointed at him, which caused him to lower his hands to shield his eyes, and that he was unable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 cases
  • Sommers v. City of Santa Clara
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • February 1, 2021
    ...‘as long as the unlawfulness [of defendant's actions] was apparent in light of pre-existing law.’ " Bonivert v. City of Clarkston , 883 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose , 402 F.3d 962, 977 (9th Cir. 2005) ) (alterati......
  • Robinson v. Cnty. of Shasta
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 1, 2019
    ...conduct in question, even though ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful.’ " Bonivert v. City of Clarkston , 883 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Lanier , 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) ). Because resolving wheth......
  • Jeanniton v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • April 15, 2022
    ...by Jeanniton would suggest to a reasonable officer that there had been some physical encounter between Simei and Jeanniton. See Bonivert, 883 F.3d at 877 (“[The officer] no objectively reasonable basis to suggest that Bonivert could harm a third party, as Bonivert was alone in the residence......
  • Gomez v. City of Vacaville
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 31, 2020
    ...conduct in question, even though ‘the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful.’ " Bonivert v. City of Clarkston , 883 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Lanier , 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) ). Because resolving wheth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Governmental tort liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...not entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged warrantless entry and use of excessive force. Bonivert v. City of Stockton , (2018) 883 F. 3d 865; however, Reese v. County of Sacramento , found that a jury’s finding of unreasonable force does not bar the granting of qualified immunity.......

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