Renfro v. Cnty. of Benewah
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00349-REP |
| Parties | DAVID J. RENFRO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BENEWAH, BENEWAH COUNTY SHERIFF DAVE RESSER, DEPUTY BRYAN DICKENSON SENIOR, DEPUTY BRANDON VANNATTER, DEPUTY DUSTIN O. PULLEY, AND DEPUTY COLTON WYNN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
DAVID J. RENFRO, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF BENEWAH, BENEWAH COUNTY SHERIFF DAVE RESSER, DEPUTY BRYAN DICKENSON SENIOR, DEPUTY BRANDON VANNATTER, DEPUTY DUSTIN O. PULLEY, AND DEPUTY COLTON WYNN, Defendants.
No. 2:20-cv-00349-REP
United States District Court, D. Idaho
May 16, 2022
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 45)
RAYMOND E. PATRICCO CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 45). All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 22. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny summary judgment on Plaintiff's unlawful detention claim and on Plaintiff's unlawful seizure of a firearm claim as asserted against the individually named Defendants who allegedly participated in the violations. The Court will dismiss the remainder of Plaintiff's claims.
BACKGROUND
A. The Search of Plaintiff's Home
On Saturday July 14, 2018, Benewah County Sheriff's Deputy Colton Wynn responded to a call from parents who found a marijuana pipe in their child's room. Wynn Depo. at 18:1421 (Dkt. 48-6).[1] Deputy Wynn spoke with the juvenile at the parents' request. Id. The juvenile
told Deputy Wynn that he was obtaining marijuana from Corey Renfro. Id. Corey Renfro is the adult son of Plaintiff David Renfro.[2] Id. at 19:13-16.
Based on the juvenile's statements, Deputy Wynn went to Corey's home with Deputy Dustin Pulley and spoke with Corey. Id. at 18:24-19:8. Corey admitted to the Deputies that he had marijuana inside his home. Id. Corey provided consent to search for the marijuana. Id. at 19:19-25. The search uncovered marijuana in various forms, including plants. Id. at 20:18-21:2, 45:9-12, 45:19-21. To reduce his criminal liability, Corey agreed to provide information to Deputy Wynn. Or. War. Aff. at 8:16-9:02, 11:06-11:10 (Dkt. 51-3). As part of this cooperation, Corey told Deputy Wynn that his father, David Renfro, was selling marijuana from his own, separate residence. Def.'s Stmnt of Facts ¶ 1 (Dkt. 58).
Deputy Wynn immediately used Corey's statement to apply for a warrant to search Mr. Renfro's home and vehicles. Id. ¶ 2. Deputy Wynn submitted the warrant affidavit orally, on July 14, 2018, with the assistance of a local prosecutor.[3] Or. War. Aff. (Dkt. 51-3). This affidavit was recorded. Id. The warrant was approved by Benewah County Magistrate Judge Douglas Payne. Id.
That same day, Deputy Wynn along with other Benewah County Sheriff's deputies -Deputy Pulley, Deputy Brandon Vannatter, and Deputy Rodney Bryan Dickenson II - executed the warrant on Mr. Renfro's home. 7/15/18 Police Rpt. at 2 (Dkt. 45-4, pgs. 2-4). During the search, the Deputies located a guitar case with a small quantity of marijuana and a pill bottle with
BHO (butane hash oil, a cannabis concentrate).[4] Id. at 3. Deputies also observed a handgun inside one of Mr. Renfro's vehicles. Id. In accordance with the warrant, Deputies seized the drug evidence and left the handgun behind. Def.'s Stmnt of Facts ¶¶ 3-4 (Dkt. 58).
B. Plaintiff's Arrest and Incarceration
Mr. Renfro and his wife, Diana Renfro, returned to Mr. Renfro's home during the search of the residence. Id. ¶ 5. When he arrived on the scene, Mr. Renfro refused to make a statement. Deputy Wynn subsequently placed Mr. Renfro under arrest for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Id. Both charges were misdemeanor charges. Id. ¶ 13.
After his arrest, Mr. Renfro asked Deputy Wynn if he was going to be able to “bail out.” Body Cam. # 10 at 5:36-5:45 (Dkt. 49-1 and 50-6). Deputy Wynn responded, “yeah.” Id. Mr. Renfro then asked how much the bail would be. Deputy Wynn said he did not know because he did not know Mr. Renfro's criminal history. Id.
Sometime thereafter, Deputy Wynn transported Mr. Renfro to the Benewah County jail. At the jail, Deputy Wynn ran a NCIC criminal history report on Mr. Renfro. Def.'s Stmnt of Facts ¶¶ 7-8 (Dkt. 58). The NCIC report indicated that Mr. Renfro was arrested on felony charges five times between 1983 and 2002. NCIC Rpt. (Dkt. 45-4, pgs. 7-12). Three of these entries showed the disposition as unknown, one showed the disposition as dismissed, and one showed the disposition as a conviction to a misdemeanor. Id. at 7-9. In his police report, Deputy
Wynn transcribed four of these five entries. 7/15/18 Police Rpt. at 3-4 (Dkt. 45-4, pgs. 2-4). For two of the entries, Deputy Wynn correctly noted that no disposition was available. Id. at 3. For one of the entries, Deputy Wynn correctly noted that the felony charge was dismissed. Id. at 4. For the 1992 entry, however, Deputy Wynn's report mistakenly states: “GRAND THEFT, FELON, DAVID WAS CONVICTED.” Id. at 3.[5] In truth, this entry shows that while Mr. Renfro was charged with a felony, he was only convicted of a misdemeanor theft. NCIC Rpt. 89 (Dkt. 45-4, pgs. 7-12).
Based on his mistaken reading of the NCIC report, Deputy Wynn added a felony charge against Mr. Renfro for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Def.'s Stmnt of Facts ¶ 8 (Dkt. 58). Mr. Renfro is not, in fact, a felon. Decl. of David Renfro ¶¶ 5-8 (Dkt. 48-3).
The addition of the ultimately unsupported felon-in-possession charge deprived Mr. Renfro of the opportunity to bond out of jail.[6] Id. ¶¶ 5, 9; see also Renfro Depo. at 44:15-24, 45:22-46-:24, 47:11-18 (during the initial booking process, Deputy Wynn told Mr. Renfro he could bail out; sometime thereafter, Mr. Renfro was told he was being charged with felony gun possession and could not, therefore, post bond); Wynn Depo. at 27:6-9 and 28:6-12 (Dkt. 48-6) (agreeing that misdemeanor marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges are “generally bondable” without going before a magistrate judge); Resser Depo. at 31:15-32:2 (Dkt. 60-8) (same). Indeed, Mr. Renfro's wife, Diana Renfro, submitted a declaration explaining that she attempted to bond Mr. Renfro out of jail but was “told the felon gun charge had no bond so he could not be bonded out.” Decl. of Diana Renfro ¶ 8 (Dkt. 48-4).
Because he was not permitted to post bond, Mr. Renfro was held in jail until his initial appearance on Monday July 16, 2018. Def.'s Stmnt of Facts ¶ 10 (Dkt. 58). At this appearance, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the felon-in-possession charge and Mr. Renfro was released on his own recognizance. Id. ¶ 11.
C. The Seizure and Return of Plaintiff's Firearm
After Mr. Renfro was charged with being a felon in possession, on Saturday July 14, 2018, Deputy Vannatter was asked to return to Mr. Renfro's house to retrieve Mr. Renfro's firearm. Id. ¶ 9. In his deposition, Deputy Vannatter indicated that he believed the firearm was included in the original warrant to search Mr. Renfro's home. Vannatter Depo. at 41:19-42:9. This is incorrect. Sr. Warr. At 5 (Dkt. 45-4, pgs. 5-6).
It is undisputed, however, that Deputy Vannatter did not ultimately obtain the firearm from physically searching Plaintiff's home or vehicle. Id. at 42:14-43:12; Decl. of Diana Renfro ¶¶ 4-7 (Dkt. 48-4). Instead, Deputy Vannatter obtained the firearm from Mr. Renfro's wife. Id. The evidence contains a factual dispute over the circumstances of this exchange. Deputy Vannatter claims he asked Diana Renfro for the firearm. Vannatter Depo. at 45:17-23. In direct contrast, Mrs. Renfro avers that Deputy Vannatter told her she “needed to give him [Mr. Renfro's] gun or [she] would be interfering with an investigation and [she] would go to jail if [she] refused to turn the firearm over to him.” Decl. of Diana Renfro ¶ 6 (Dkt. 48-4). In either event, the parties agree that Mrs. Renfro gave Deputy Vannatter the gun. Id.
The firearm was returned to Mr. Renfro on Monday July 16, 2018, the day he was released from jail. Renfro Depo. at 38:9-38:10, 76:8-77:10 (Dkt. 48-7).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute about a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party].” Id. at 252.
In deciding whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255; Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)). The court is prohibited from weighing the evidence or resolving disputed issues in the moving party's favor. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014).
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials from liability for harm caused by reasonable mistakes, protecting all but the “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Easley v. City of Riverside, 890 F.3d 851, 856 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011)). The qualified immunity inquiry involves two steps. When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the Court must evaluate: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct, i.e., whether the contours of the right were sufficiently well developed that a reasonable official should have known his conduct was unlawful. Id. Unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial