Jiron v. Roth
| Decision Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 19-541 SCY/LF |
| Citation | 519 F.Supp.3d 971 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
| Parties | Mariam JIRON, individually and as Parent and Next Friend of J.G., a Minor, and E.G., a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. Seth ROTH, in his individual capacity, Antoinette Carabajal, in her individual capacity, and City of Albuquerque, Defendants. |
Margaret Strickland, McGraw & Strickland, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiffs.
Kristin J. Dalton, City of Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Mariam Jiron and her minor children J.G. and E.G. bring this lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure based on a child welfare check conducted inside Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant. Ms. Jiron further alleges that during the search Officer Sean Roth violated her First Amendment rights when he threatened to arrest her in retaliation for her speech. The defendant police officers Antoinette Carabajal and Sean Roth raise qualified immunity and move for summary judgment. They argue that the initial encounter and subsequent search were consensual and that no legal authority existed at the time of their search that would have put them on notice that their conduct was illegal. With regard to Ms. Jiron's First Amendment claim, Officer Roth asserts that he threatened to arrest Ms. Jiron because she was becoming agitated, not because of anything she said and, in any event, no clearly established law existed to place him on notice that his conduct was illegal.
The Court concludes that none of the officers’ conduct prior to commanding Ms. Jiron to open her apartment's front door violated Plaintiffs’ rights. Under clearly established Tenth Circuit precedent and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, however, Officer Roth seized Ms. Jiron when he ordered her to open her door. Because no legal justification existed for this seizure, it violated Ms. Jiron's Fourth Amendment rights and rendered invalid any subsequent consent to search that Ms. Jiron provided. Further, drawing all factual inferences in Ms. Jiron's favor, Officer Roth violated her First Amendment rights when he threatened to arrest her after she began to complain about the search that was taking place in her apartment. Because clearly established authority at the time did not exist to place the officers on notice that their specific conduct in this specific context would violate Ms. Jiron's First Amendment rights, however, qualified immunity shields Defendants from liability on the First Amendment claim. Finally, for the same reason the Court concludes Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on some of their federal constitutional claims, the Court denies their motion for summary judgment on the state constitutional claims.
On February 12, 2019 at 1:00 AM, Officer Antoinette Carabajal and Officer Sean Roth were dispatched to 220 60th St NW #A to perform a child welfare check on a New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department referral about an allegation of child abuse. Defendants’ Undisputed Material Fact ("UMF") No. 1.2 The allegation was that children located at the address were using drugs or were around drug users in the home. Id. The original call came in at 10:20 p.m. Plaintiffs’ Response to UMF No. 1.3 Dispatch told the Defendant Officers that Ms. Jiron, the children's mother, had reported that her children were using some drug and no other information was given. Id.
At the address, Defendants entered the common courtyard and approached the apartment. UMF No. 2. They did not pass through any fences or gates between the common path and the front door. Id. The area in front of the apartment was not surrounded by any fencing or any other means of shielding it from view. Id. Plaintiffs purport to dispute this fact, but do not address the specific contentions Defendants set forth in their UMF, including whether "the area in front of the apartment" was surrounded by fencing. Doc. 69 at 5. Instead, Plaintiffs add that Ms. Jiron has blinds covering her windows. Plaintiff's Resp. to UMF No. 2.
The following UMFs (Nos. 3 through 13) describe events that are also depicted by footage from the officers’ body cameras. When no party disputes the authenticity of a video and the video is so clear that no reasonable jury could adopt the nonmoving party's interpretation of the video, the Supreme Court has instructed that lower courts should "view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape" rather than accept the nonmoving party's interpretation of the facts. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). Therefore, the Court examines the body camera footage itself, rather than accepting either party's version of events. To the extent the videos are unclear on a point, however, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, the nonmoving party.
Between the first knock and Ms. Jiron arriving at the door, roughly 1 minute and 45 seconds passed. During this time, the officers knocked on the door or window four times and announced "police department" one time. Ms. Jiron opened the inner door of her apartment, leaving the outer metal security door closed. Both officers drew their guns when Ms. Jiron began to open her inner front door.4 Officer Roth pointed his gun in the direction of Ms. Jiron for at least a second.5 Officer Carabajal pointed her gun at the ground. Officer Carabajal yelled "police department," and Officer Roth repeated "police department" in a normal tone of voice. By the time Officer Roth repeated "police department," he had lowered his gun until it too was angled toward the ground. After Ms. Jiron greeted the officers and as Officer Roth was holstering his gun, he ordered her to "open the door please" in a professional but stern tone.6 About a second later, Officer Carabajal holstered her weapon as well.
Ms. Jiron then partially opened the second, outer metal security door to her apartment. Officer Roth opened the door farther, stepped in front of Ms. Jiron and had a short conversation with Ms. Jiron while she was standing in her doorway. During this conversation, Ms. Jiron asks why she has to open the door and Officer Roth tells her "for the police." When Officer Roth tells her they are there to check on her children and Ms. Jiron asks why, Officer Roth responds in a slightly annoyed tone, "Well first of all, you're not answering the door when we're pounding on it" and asks her whether she heard the officers announcing that they were the police. Only then did Officer Roth say, "Would it be alright if we come in and chat with you?"7 Ms. Jiron then slightly turns and moves back and Officer Roth begins to move forward into the apartment, followed by Officer Carbajal.8
The following table sets forth each event and the timestamp from each body camera:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLinn v. Thomas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...firmness would be chilled, rather than whether the particular plaintiff is chilled.") (italics in original); Jiron v. Roth, 519 F.Supp.3d 971, 999 (D. N. M. Feb. 16, 2021) ("The Supreme Court has held that ‘the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and ......