Lozano v. Doe
| Citation | 591 F.Supp.3d 700 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 5:20-cv-00684-SVW (SK) |
| Decision Date | 18 March 2022 |
| Parties | Jose LOZANO, Plaintiff, v. John DOE 1 et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Jose Lozano, Hemet, CA, Pro Se.
Allen Christiansen, Ferguson Praet and Sherman APC, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants The Riverside County, The Riverside County Sherriff Office, Sheriff Deputy Curtis, Sheriff Deputy Enoch.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Jose Lozano sues two Riverside County deputy sheriffs, Defendants Enochs and Curtis, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest and prolonged detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The deputies arrested Plaintiff in November 2019 just outside his home while issuing an excessive noise citation. He was then taken into custody (after Plaintiff refused to sign the citation) and jailed for more than 48 hours with no probable cause hearing. Defendants now seek summary judgment on these claims based on qualified immunity. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in Plaintiff's favor, as the Court must for now, a rational jury could find that Defendants unlawfully arrested Plaintiff in the curtilage of his home with no warrant and that they then held him in custody too long with no probable cause hearing. But only Plaintiff's right to a probable cause determination within 48 hours of his warrantless arrest was clearly established then. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991). Plaintiff has not proven that his arrest in his home's curtilage—during a consensual knock-and-talk—violated a clearly established right under then-binding Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent. As a result, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim but not his prolonged detention claim. The Court recommends accordingly that their summary judgment motion be granted in part and denied in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 ; G.O. 05-07.
The following material facts, except where otherwise noted, are undisputed and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.1
In early November 2019, Deputy Enochs was dispatched to Plaintiff's residence in Hemet, California, a rural area in Riverside County, to investigate a neighbor's noise complaint.2 This was not the first time the deputy had paid a visit to Plaintiff's house for complaints of excessive noise from loud music. Plaintiff lives in a 1,600 square foot house situated on about three acres of land surrounded by a covered chain link fence. Only the north side of his property, which has a wide metal gate across Plaintiff's driveway near the northwest corner, abuts the publicly accessible street. A few yards east at the property's northeast corner is a tall wooden door with a mailbox and "No Trespassing/Beware of Dog" sign in front. The distance from that wooden door to the house is about 120 feet. (ECF 52-4 at 74).3
When Deputy Enochs first arrived on the scene, he stopped his patrol car about 80 yards away from Plaintiff's property and confirmed that he could hear music from that distance in violation of Riverside County's noise ordinance.4 He then parked in front of the driveway gate from where he says he activated his airhorn and loudspeaker to draw any resident's attention.
Plaintiff heard no loudspeaker announcements, however, and no one met Deputy Enochs at the driveway gate. The deputy still deduced someone was home because he claims he heard the music volume go down immediately. So Deputy Enochs walked east on the northern perimeter of the fence until he arrived at the wooden door, which was closed but unlocked.5 Meanwhile, Deputy Curtis arrived as backup. Both Defendants turned on their bodycams around the time they entered Plaintiff's property through the wooden door.
While announcing his presence, Deputy Enochs walked to the east side of the house to the front door, where he was greeted by the young aunt of Plaintiff's two minor children who were also inside the house.6 Deputy Curtis, meanwhile, walked toward the north side of the house where he arrived at a nearby paved walkway that connected the front porch to the rear of the house. Plaintiff emerged from the back, asking Deputy Curtis what was happening and remarking that he thought someone was "trespassing." Deputy Curtis led Plaintiff a short way down the walkway to be met by Deputy Enochs at the northeast corner of his house. Plaintiff was holding a beer and appeared intoxicated but was neither belligerent nor incoherent. He continued sipping his beer while the three of them stood a few feet apart from each other and talked. The music had been turned down but not off. The deputies displayed no show of force, and Plaintiff exhibited no behavior suggesting he felt constrained in his movements.
Deputy Enochs told Plaintiff he was there to investigate a neighbor's noise complaint, explained how he had confirmed that the music from Plaintiff's house could be heard at more than 200 feet away (thereby violating the noise ordinance), and claimed that Plaintiff had ignored his loudspeaker announcements. Plaintiff denied hearing any airhorn announcement from Deputy Enochs’ car, though he acknowledged that the deputy had recently come to his house and given him a warning before about excessive noise. Plaintiff otherwise deflected or downplayed his neighbor's noise complaints, which appeared to annoy Deputy Curtis, leading to some boorish exchanges between those two while Deputy Enochs was deciding whether to issue a noise citation. Plaintiff's general behavior around this time was defensive and discourteous but never dangerous; he was surly and gabby but neither aggressive nor threatening.
Defendants eventually decided to issue Plaintiff a $500 noise citation. But even then, Deputy Enochs offered to withdraw the ticket later if, between then and Plaintiff's noticed date to appear in court, the deputies received no more noise complaints from neighbors. So as Deputy Enochs moved a few steps away on the walkway to write the citation, Plaintiff said that he would wait somewhere else, gesturing nonchalantly toward the back of his house. Right as he started to move, however, Deputy Curtis instructed Plaintiff to stay near him, saying that he was being "detained" for a noise ordinance violation. Surprised but not alarmed, Plaintiff complied at first, standing near Deputy Curtis. He soon became agitated, though, and accused Defendants of trespassing and "breaking procedure" by coming onto his property without permission. When Deputy Enochs countered that he had found the wooden door unlocked and wide open, Plaintiff insisted it was closed and did not have to be locked to prevent trespassing. During some of that exchange, Plaintiff had drifted to Deputy Enochs, prompting Deputy Curtis to order him back to "come hang out" next to him while Deputy Enochs "gets the ticket ready."
But after some small talk with Deputy Curtis, Plaintiff turned his back to the deputy and ambled toward the north wall of his house as he faced Deputy Enochs. (Deputy Curtis would later report that he viewed Plaintiff's move as a "sign of aggression," though the video reveals nothing resembling that.) Deputy Curtis commanded Plaintiff to come back to him, but when he did not respond or comply instantly, the deputy charged Plaintiff, handcuffed his hands behind him, and repeated that he was being "detained for a violation of the noise ordinance" and restrained for failing to heed the deputy's instructions. It was around 4:34 pm by this time.7
After he had handcuffed Plaintiff, Deputy Curtis ordered Plaintiff to sit down or else be taken to the patrol car. Plaintiff refused to sit, so the deputy escorted him off the property and placed him in the back of his patrol car. The deputy told Plaintiff he would release him after Deputy Enochs had finishing writing the citation. Meanwhile, Deputy Enochs spoke with the young aunt who had greeted him at the front porch, who verified that Plaintiff's "attitude" was typical but exacerbated by alcohol. The deputy explained that he had written very few noise citations because most homeowners would turn down music with a warning and agree to be compliant rather than pay a $500 fine. He told the aunt, though, that Plaintiff could be released once he signed the citation. When she asked what would happen if he refused, Deputy Enochs said that he would be jailed for at least two or three days waiting to see a judge since no one would be available during the weekend. The aunt hinted that Plaintiff would likely refuse to sign the citation.
Her prediction turned out correct. By now angry that he had been handcuffed and forced to wait in the back of a police car, Plaintiff refused to sign the citation when Deputy Enochs presented it. Even after Defendants explained that he would be jailed if he refused and asked how they could persuade him to sign so he could be released, Plaintiff adamantly refused. He escalated the situation, in fact, demanding that Defendants call child protective services for his minor children at home while he went to jail. Their mother was out of the country, but Plaintiff refused to allow their aunt to stay and watch the children. Even after she reached Plaintiff's wife by phone and the two of them implored Plaintiff to sign the ticket and "fight it later," he refused to back down. Claiming to know that he would be in jail only one night, Plaintiff dared the deputies to take him into custody. Deputy Enochs obliged and, after waiting for child protective services, drove Plaintiff to the police station. By the time he was booked and jailed there, it was late evening of Sunday, November 3.
Plaintiff's stint in jail was not as short as he had expected: he remained in custody at least three nights. He had no court hearing the next full day (Monday November 4)...
To continue reading
Request your trial