Puliafico v. County of San Bernardino
| Decision Date | 12 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. EDCV 96-02-71 RT (VAPx).,EDCV 96-02-71 RT (VAPx). |
| Citation | 42 F.Supp.2d 1000 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Lori PULIAFICO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Deputy Allen Slack, in his individual and official capacity; Timothy Nichols, in his individuals and official capacity; Deputy Peterson, in his individual and official capacity; David Lau, in his individual and official capacity; Robert Guillen, in his individual and official capacity; Deputy Drew Wiley, in his individual and official capacity; Deputy J. Pacewiczh, in his individual and official capacity; Deputy Holly Howell, in her individual and official capacity; and Does 2-20, inclusive, Defendants. |
E. Thomas Barham, Jr., Shirley A. Ostrow, Law Offices of Barham and Ostrow, Los Alamitos, CA, for plaintiff.
Stephen Miller, Law Offices of Bruggeman, Smith & Peckham, LLP, San Bernardino, CA, for defendants.
Plaintiff Lori Puliafico (plaintiff) seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (section 1983) against the County of San Bernardino (County) and several members of its Sheriff's Department.1 Currently before the Court are (1) cross-motions for summary adjudication of certain issues relating to the legal validity of plaintiff's detention and arrest by the individual defendants, (2) the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, and (3) all defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial.
On July 14, 1995, officers of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement personnel discovered a methamphetamine laboratory during a consent search of private property in the High Desert area. Soon after the officers discovered the drug lab, plaintiff arrived at the property driving her domestic partner's recently purchased pickup truck. Plaintiff was detained by the officers, and a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup yielded a PR24 police baton, illegal under California law for a private citizen to possess. Plaintiff was held for roughly two hours at the site, and then taken to county jail on suspicion of participation in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Plaintiff spent four days in custody. No charges were ever filed.
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to section 1983, alleging that the various individual defendants deprived her of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments rights, and that the County defendant was liable under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), for its custom, policy and practice of not properly training its deputies regarding the constitutional principles governing detentions and arrests.
By the instant motions, plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) that defendant Howell stopped and detained plaintiff without reasonable suspicion; (2) that defendant Pacewiczh detained plaintiff without reasonable suspicion and that such detention amounted to a de facto arrest without probable cause; (3) that defendants Slack and Guillen arrested plaintiff for manufacturing methamphetamine without probable cause to believe she had committed that crime; and (4) that defendant Wiley ordered the arrest of plaintiff for manufacturing methamphetamine without probable cause to believe she had committed that crime.
Defendants'3 oppositions to plaintiff's motions requests summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) that the initial stop and detention of plaintiff was lawful; (2) that the subsequent search of the pickup driven by plaintiff was lawful; (3) that the detention of plaintiff was lawful based upon either reasonable suspicion or probable cause; (4) that the arrest of plaintiff was lawful; and (5) that the individual defendants are shielded from liability on the basis of qualified immunity.
In addition, by separate motion, defendants request summary judgment based on grounds (1), (2) and (4) from the previous paragraph, and based on the fact that a determination of probable cause was made by a judicial officer after less than 48 hours of incarceration. Also by separate motion, all defendants move to bifurcate the trial.4
Defendants submitted objections to evidence submitted by plaintiff. See Defendants' Objections to Evidence in re Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication. The rulings are as follows:
1. Overruled.
2. Overruled.
3. Overruled.
4. Overruled.
5. Overruled.
6. Overruled.
7. Overruled.
Defendants further object to evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment. See Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Exhibits Filed in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The rulings are as follows:
1. Overruled.
2. Sustained.
3. Overruled.
4. Overruled.
5. Sustained.
6. Sustained.
7. Overruled.
8. Overruled.
Defendants' requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) certain San Bernardino County Ordinances and (2) the "Probable Cause Determination" concerning plaintiff's arrest are granted.
Plaintiff objects to certain evidence submitted by Defendants. See Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence in Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues. The rulings are as follows:5
1. Overruled.6
2. Overruled.
3. Overruled.
4. Overruled.
6. Overruled.
8. Overruled.
9. Overruled.7
10. Overruled.
11. Overruled.
12. Overruled.
13. Overruled.
14. Overruled.
18. Overruled.
19. Overruled.
21. Sustained as to Pacewiczh's statement that Strause was well known to other law enforcement officers — lack of foundation; otherwise overruled.
22. Sustained as to Pacewiczh's statement that Strause was well known to other law enforcement officers — lack of foundation; otherwise overruled.
23. Overruled.
25. Overruled.
28. Overruled.
29. Sustained as to testimony that purports to describe common practice among methamphetamine manufacturers — lack of foundation; overruled as to testimony that describes the detaining and arresting officers' beliefs as to those practices at the time of the conduct complained of.
30. Overruled.
32. Overruled.
33. Overruled.
34. Overruled.
35. Sustained as to Sanchez' testimony — irrelevant as she has been dismissed from the case; sustained as to Wiley's testimony — lack of foundation; otherwise overruled.
The parties dispute the procedural regularity of certain filings, which arguably exceed the page limits set by local rule. The Court has considered all previously filed documents pertinent to these motions. The Court does observe, however, that the voluminous briefing of the various motions considered here is highly repetitive. The parties are urged to avoid such redundant briefing in the future, and are cautioned that over-length documents will not be regularly allowed.
Although many important facts remain disputed at this point in the litigation, the following basic facts are uncontroverted, material and supported by admissible evidence. Additional facts relevant to the particular issues raised by the parties' motions will be discussed in the body of this order.
On July 14, 1995, a task force consisting of officers from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement agencies was operating in the High Desert area of San Bernardino County. The team was supervised by defendant Pacewiczh, and consisted, in part, of defendants Petersen, Slack, Nichols and Howell.8
Sometime after 1:00 p.m., the team arrived at a 10-acre, fenced compound, referred to by all parties as Buckthorne Canyon Wash. The compound is accessible only by dirt road, and is roughly 10 miles from the town of Adelanto. The compound contained numerous automobiles and automobile parts, in various states of disrepair, and several trailers which were apparently occupied. The property had been previously involved in car theft activity, and the task force hoped to obtain consent to conduct a search.
After entering the premises, the team discovered a methamphetamine laboratory, and also discovered a quantity of what was initially believed to be freshly manufactured methamphetamine in the possession of one of the occupants. Several individuals at the scene of the search were detained for investigation. Because of the discovery of the methamphetamine laboratory, a narcotics task force, which was also operating in the desert that day, was called in. This task force was led by defendant Wiley, and included defendant Guillen.
Soon after the laboratory was found, and before the officers had notified their command center that they were "Code 4" — i.e. had safely secured the premises — plaintiff arrived at the compound driving a recently purchased pickup truck which belonged to her domestic partner.9 Plaintiff drove up to the compound, observed the law enforcement activity, and stopped inside the fenceline. The amount of time she waited before contact with any of the deputies is unclear, although it appears to have been somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes.10
Plaintiff was flagged into the compound and approached by defendant Howell and Sanchez, who were on foot. Howell asked for plaintiff's license and the truck's registration. The truck was registered to Barry Woods, and plaintiff explained that Woods was her domestic partner and that she lived with him.
Although the chronological order of the following events is disputed, it is uncontroverted that plaintiff was asked (or told) to exit her vehicle, that Howell learned that Woods was a State Corrections Officer, and that Howell discovered Woods' uniform shirt and a PR24 side-handled police baton in the truck. Possession of such a baton by a private citizen may violate California law, and at least some of the deputies at the search site were aware of this fact.11
Plaintiff explained to the officers that the gear belonged to Woods, who could legally possess it and in fact was required to keep the equipment with him when off...
To continue reading
Request your trial