Harmon v. Cnty. of Sacramento

• Decision Date: 26 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2:12-cv-02758 TLN,2:12-cv-02758 TLN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: ANNIE HARMON, individually and as joint successor-in-interest to Decedent LAMONT HARMON; MARGARET HOOPER, individually and as joint successor-in-interest to Decedent LAMONT HARMON; H.H., a minor, individually and as a joint successor-in-interest to Decedent LAMONT HARMON, through her Guardian Ad Litem, MARGARET HOOPER; THE ESTATE OF LAMONT HARMON, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SCOTT JONES, in his official capacity as SHERIFF for the SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; NATHAN BURNETTE, individually; RICARDO MARTIN, individually; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually, jointly and severally, Defendants.

ANNIE HARMON, individually and as joint successor-in-interestto Decedent LAMONT HARMON; MARGARET HOOPER, individually and as joint successor-in-interestto Decedent LAMONT HARMON; H.H., a minor, individually and as a joint successor-in-interestto Decedent LAMONT HARMON, through her Guardian Ad Litem, MARGARET HOOPER;THE ESTATE OF LAMONT HARMON, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SCOTT JONES, in his official capacity as SHERIFFfor the SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; NATHAN BURNETTE, individually;RICARDO MARTIN, individually; and DOES 1-50,inclusive, individually, jointly and severally, Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02758 TLN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 26, 2016

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants County of Sacramento, Sheriff Scott Jones, Nathan Burnette, and Ricardo Martin's (collectively referred to as "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiffs Annie Harmon, Margaret Hooper and H.H., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Margaret Hooper ("Plaintiffs") oppose Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants have filed a reply. (ECF No. 36.) The Court has carefully considered the briefing filed by both parties. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 25) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

In the early morning hours on February 6, 2012, Defendants Burnette and Martin (hereinafter "Burnette" and "Martin") were partnered together and were patrolling the Fruitridge/Stockton area. (Burnette Decl., ECF No. 25-4, [hereinafter "Burnette Decl.] at ¶ 12, Martin Decl., ECF No. 25-4, [hereinafter "Martin Decl.] at ¶ 12.) Burnette and Martin's shift was from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 11.) During their patrol, Defendants learned, via the Computer Assisted Dispatch ("CAD") that the Sacramento Police Department (hereinafter "SPD") was investigating a stolen vehicle located at a 24 hour AM/PM gas station. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 14, Martin Decl. at ¶ 14.) At 2:45 a.m., the CAD listed information that the suspect driver of the stolen vehicle just walked inside the AM/PM store on foot. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 14, Martin Decl. at ¶ 14.) At 2:46 a.m., the CAD listed that the California Highway Patrol ("CHP") had a possible Code 5 on the stolen vehicle. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 14, Martin Decl. at ¶ 14.) Code 5 is shorthand for surveillance. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 14, Martin Decl. at ¶ 14.) Burnette stated that dispatch put out an information transmission based on information provided by Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy Treat who was using his personal scanner to monitor SPD's radio channel. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 87:17-22 [hereinafter "Burnette Dep."].)

Burnette received information that SPD had recovered the stolen vehicle, that it was parked at the AM/PM, and that a suspect was seen going into the AM/PM but had not come out of the store. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 87:4-13.)² Burnette assumed that SPD was in a position of concealment at the gas station, waiting for the suspect to leave the AM/PM store. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 103:2-5.) Burnette and Martin did not receive any suspectdescription nor did they receive a request from SPD to assist with the investigation of the stolen vehicle. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 87:14-16; 91:7-8.) Martin stated that Sacramento Sheriff Deputy Arbuckle alerted them that SPD was watching a stolen vehicle at the location. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 46:2-11 [hereinafter "Martin Dep."].) Martin stated the communications they received was SPD was in the process of recovering a stolen car, they had three patrol units at the AM/PM where the stolen car was located, and they had the situation handled. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 54:6-22.)

When they drove by the AM/PM, Burnette saw SPD officers on foot in the gas station and two to three patrol cars with headlights on. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 91:2-6; 103:10-14.) Burnette felt that SPD wasn't really doing surveillance. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, p. 103:13-15.) Burnette did not have any information that anyone had fled the scene or had been taken into custody. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 103:16-25.) Based on this information, Burnette believed the suspect was outstanding, so he decided to go search the area for individuals that could be related to the stolen vehicle.³ (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 103:23-25; 116:1-23.) Defendants had not received a request from dispatch or SPD to search for outstanding suspects. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 116:18-23.) Burnette never told Martin that they were going to look for a suspect. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 116:9-17.) When they left the location of the AM/PM Martin intended to continue on with their normal patrol duties but he didn't communicate his intent to Burnette. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 57:1-12.) Burnette was the driver and Martin was the passenger. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 32:23-25; 33:1-2.)

Defendants proceeded north on Stockton Blvd. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 18, Martin Decl. at ¶¶ 16, 18.) As they approached the Kmart parking lot adjacent to and on the other side of the shopping center containing the AM/PM, Burnette noticed a figure, who turned out to be Decedent Lamont Harmon ("Harmon"), walking through the parking lot, five yards from the only other car in the parking lot. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 64:5-18; 69:3-6.) Burnette described the area as a high crime area with a lot of violent crime, a lot of robberies, and a lot of gun crimes.(Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 146:12-16; 159:24-25.) Martin did not realize they were going into the parking lot until Burnette said, ". . . let's talk to this guy." (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 64:5-15.) Burnette did not advise other officers over the radio that he would be making contact with Harmon. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 118:2-23.)

Harmon was the only person in the area on foot. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 19.) When Burnette saw Harmon walking in the dark parking lot he wasn't sure if he was affiliated with the stolen car or just leaving work. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 129:7-13.) Burnette was aware that the AM/PM was open 24 hours and that there was housing in the vicinity of where Harmon was stopped. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 135:14-19.) Burnette knew it was not uncommon to see people in this area coming and going. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 135:20-22.). Burnette indicated it was a cold night and Harmon had on a jacket. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 135:23-25.)

Burnette did not recall turning off his headlights which is something officers are taught to use to gain a tactical advantage so they can get closer to a subject without being detected. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 130:14-25; 131:1-11.) Martin stated that Burnette had turned off his headlights prior to contacting Harmon. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 69:10-21.) Martin was surprised at both the entire contact, and the fact that the headlights were out. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 69:22-25.)

Defendants drove into the Kmart parking lot, activated their alley light, front headlights and take-down lights (take down lights are white lights similar to head lights) as they were driving up to Harmon. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 132:5-12.) Burnette drove his vehicle approximately five to seven yards from Harmon before stopping. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 131: 16-22.) Harmon stopped walking as they pulled up to him. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 131:23-25; 132:1.)

As they were driving up, they turned on the lights to illuminate Harmon who they could see was a black male, wearing a heavy jacket. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 132:13-22.) Defendants exited the patrol vehicle and identified themselves as law enforcement. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 142:16-23.) Defendants were both dressed in full Sacramento CountySheriff's Department uniforms. (Burnette Decl. at ¶ 24; Martin Decl. at ¶ 22.) Burnette said he exited the vehicle very quickly. (Burnette Dep., ECF 31-1, at 139: 8-12.) Martin approached the person as the "contact" officer, taking the lead in conversing with Harmon, while Burnette acted as the "cover" officer, standing in front of the patrol vehicle in order to watch the movements of the subject, so the contact officer could concentrate on the conversation. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 140:1-25; 141:1-12.)

Martin stated that as he got out of the vehicle, Harmon was coming in his direction. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 71:16-22.) Both Defendants were near Harmon, kind of in a triangular position or at different angles relative to Harmon. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 141:11-17.) Burnette had his flashlight out but doesn't recall whether he was shining it at Harmon. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 142:5-9.) Martin recalled that he did use his flashlight to illuminate Harmon. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 31-2, at 82:4-10.)

Martin began questioning Harmon, first asking him what he was doing in the area. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 35-2, at 76:22-24.) From the point in time in which they initially saw Harmon walking in the parking lot up until they identified themselves as officers, Harmon did not try to flee nor did he discard anything. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 142:24-25; 143:1-15.) Harmon responded with either "huh" or "what," and had a "thousand yard stare" like he was looking right past Martin.⁴ (Martin Dep., ECF No. 35-2, at 76:22-25; 77:2; 82:23-25.) Harmon eventually said he lived in the area. (Burnette Dep., ECF No. 31-1, at 144:4-21.) Martin next asked Harmon whether he was on probation or parole. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 35-2, at 82:20-25.) Harmon denied being on parole and continued to stare blankly at Martin. (Martin Dep., ECF No. 35-2, at 82:20-25.)

While Martin was within a couple of...