Murchison v. Cnty. of Tehama
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | C090060 |
| Citation | 69 Cal.App.5th 867,284 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 |
| Parties | Michael Vern MURCHISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TEHAMA et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, John G. Heller and Emily Wieser, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Porter Scott, Stephen E. Horan and David R. Norton, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents.
Duarte, J. Defendants Sergeant Richard Knox and Sheriff's Deputy Jeff Garrett, of the Tehama County Sheriff's Department (Department), confronted plaintiff Michael Vern Murchison on his rural property, while Knox and Garrett were trying to secure a rifle they had spotted.
Plaintiff brought multiple claims against Knox, Garrett, Sheriff Dave Hencratt, and Tehama County, including federal law claims of unlawful search and excessive force, and state law claims of battery by a peace officer, assault, and interference with his constitutional rights by threat, intimidation, or coercion. The trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion in its entirety.
On appeal, plaintiff contends there are triable issues of fact as to two of his claims under title 42 United States Code section 1983,1 whether Knox and Garrett committed an unexcused warrantless search that proximately caused his injuries and whether they used excessive force in detaining him. He also claims error in the granting of summary judgment as to his state law claims for violation of his constitutional rights, battery by a peace officer, and assault. As we will explain, we agree with plaintiff, and shall reverse the trial court's judgment in part and remand with directions.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The following facts are taken from the evidence set forth in the papers filed in connection with defendants’ summary judgment motion, except that evidence to which objections were properly made and sustained. ( Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.) We summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing summary judgment, resolving any doubts concerning the evidence in his favor. ( Ibid . )
Plaintiff's Property
Plaintiff, who was almost 66 years old at the time of this incident, lived at the end of Joint Road in Red Bluff, California.2 The maintained section of Joint Road, which was a public highway, ended where it passed plaintiff's house. The county posted a sign reading "Road Closed" at that point, and plaintiff strung a rope across the road to prevent people from driving onto the closed portion of Joint Road.
Formation of the Officers’ Operation
A real estate agent and his client moved plaintiff's rope to drive past the Road Closed sign to look for property. Plaintiff told them the road was closed. The client told the agent he thought plaintiff had a handgun in his pocket. The agent called the Department to discuss the incident and to confirm that he had a legal right to use the road. The agent did not specifically recall telling anyone at the Department what the client had told him about the handgun, but he said he may have done so.
Hencratt shared with Knox his belief that plaintiff was a convicted felon who was prohibited from owning firearms, and he directed Knox to investigate. Knox and Garrett researched plaintiff's criminal record using a database maintained by the California Department of Justice and discovered that plaintiff was a convicted felon, which they believed precluded him from owning, possessing, or controlling firearms. Based on his research, it also appeared to Garrett that Joint Road was a public roadway and not plaintiff's private property.
Knox did not interview the real estate agent or his client; the client later explained that he had "seen something" in plaintiff's hand, "possibly a gun," but that it "could be anything." The client acknowledged he was at least 100 feet away, had bad eyesight, and just assumed that "for somebody to live somewhere in the country, they have to have a gun." Knox and Garrett did not obtain a warrant to search plaintiff's property; Knox acknowledged they did not have probable cause to secure a warrant at that time.
The Operation
Knox and Garrett drove an unmarked sports utility vehicle (SUV) to Joint Road near plaintiff's property. They dressed in plain clothes in order to conceal their identity as law enforcement officers; they intended to provoke plaintiff into brandishing a firearm.
Garrett walked toward the Road Closed sign. Plaintiff walked out onto his deck from inside his house, and he told Knox and Garrett that the road was closed and they would be trespassing if they proceeded. Garrett returned to the SUV, and plaintiff went back inside his house. Garrett then walked to the rope, stepped over it, and continued onto the closed section of Joint Road. Knox and Garrett observed a chronograph on the north side of plaintiff's property, which they were aware can be used to measure bullet speed.
Plaintiff left his house, walked through his shop located adjacent to his house to the north, grabbed a pencil and a piece of paper, and approached the SUV to record its license plate number. Plaintiff then walked back to his deck, where he called 911 from a landline.
Garrett and Knox decided to leave. They backed the SUV onto a driveway to the west of plaintiff's shop; the driveway was on plaintiff's property but was used for public purposes, including package pickups and deliveries. The SUV was facing west, meaning the driver's side door faced toward plaintiff, who stood on his porch to the south of his shop.
Observing the Firearm and the Takedown
Garrett then saw a bolt-action rifle on top of a bench on the north side of plaintiff's shop, and Knox saw the rifle after Garrett told him about it. The rifle was unloaded, and its bolt was back, meaning it was not in a position to be fired.3 There was no one near the rifle at the time Garrett observed it.
Knox and Garrett got out of the SUV, Knox from the driver's side. Garrett testified that they did not try to obtain a warrant at that time because "at this time we were there, and we decided that we were going to attempt to make contact with [plaintiff] in regards to the rifle." In his deposition, Garrett was asked: "And what was the emergency that allowed you to enter [plaintiff's] property without a warrant?" Counsel objected, and Garrett did not answer. Following the objection, Garrett was again asked, "Was there an emergency?" Garrett responded, "I don't believe there was an emergency."4
While plaintiff stood talking to the 911 operator on his porch, Knox began "walking very quickly" toward the back of plaintiff's shop, in the direction of the rifle. Knox did not identify himself as law enforcement as he moved toward the rifle. Plaintiff believed he was being robbed; he began running toward the rifle along the east side of the shop--the side facing away from the SUV.
When asked where Knox was at the time plaintiff started running toward the rifle, plaintiff testified that "[Knox] was probably halfway around my shop by then,"5 and was "past his vehicle." Plaintiff later photographed his view of the shop and driveway from his porch, where he had stood while talking to the 911 operator. He was able to see through a large opening in the south wall of his shop to two windows in the shop's northwest corner. He had drawn a circle around the windows, and he testified he could see "Knox get out of his vehicle and start in a fast pace towards the back of my shop right here (indicating)." He then stated: "And through these windows here where I could see him half [sic ]."
After seeing plaintiff begin to run, Knox and then Garrett began running, still moving toward the rifle.6 They observed what they believed to be ammunition near the rifle; they believed plaintiff could obtain and load the rifle, and they feared plaintiff might fire it at them.
According to Karen Clendenen, plaintiff's girlfriend who witnessed the events, Knox exited the SUV, "started to walk, and then he was walking pretty fast almost a run." She recalled that as Knox began to run,
Knox reached the rifle before plaintiff, but he continued past it, turning the northeast corner of the shop. As plaintiff approached the shop's northeast corner, Knox came around the corner, aimed his service weapon at plaintiff's head from a distance of eight or nine inches, and yelled, "Sheriff's office, get to the fucking ground, asshole." Plaintiff did not hear the words "Sheriff's Office." He explained:
Plaintiff started to back up so he could get on the ground. One to two seconds later, Garrett tackled plaintiff to the ground from behind. Plaintiff went to the ground on his front side and blocked his fall with his hands. His arms were pinned beneath his body, and Knox and Garrett were yelling at him to give them his arms. Either Knox or Garrett shoved plaintiff's face into the ground. Both officers were on his back. They grabbed plaintiff's arms, pulled them behind his back, and handcuffed him, leaving him lying face down in the dirt for "a minute, minute and a half if not longer." Plaintiff realized Knox and Garrett were law enforcement while he was on the ground being handcuffed.
Plaintiff's Release and His Injuries
Plaintiff complained that his hands were hurting,...
To continue reading
Request your trial