Rivera v. County of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 05 July 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 10-1861 PSG (DTBx)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Santiago Ibarra Rivera v. County of Los Angeles et al.

Santiago Ibarra Rivera

v.County of Los Angeles et al.

Case No. CV 10-1861 PSG (DTBx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: July 5, 2011

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez

Deputy Clerk

Not Present

Court Reporter

n/a

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Not Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendants' motions for summary judgment

Before the Court are (1) Defendant County of Los Angeles and Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's (together, "L.A. County Defendants") motion for summary judgment; and (2) Defendant San Bernardino County and Defendant San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department's (together, "S.B. County Defendants") motion for summary judgment. These matters came before the Court for a hearing on June 27, 2011. Having considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to these motions, as well as the arguments presented at oral argument, the Court GRANTS the motions.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Santiago Ibarra Rivera ("Plaintiff) alleges that on two separate occasions he was improperly arrested and detained on a warrant meant for another person. According to Plaintiff, this was no anomaly; he claims, rather, that law enforcement officials regularly arrest the wrong persons because warrants issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court do not include unique identifying information that would accurately identify the individuals sought.

On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Los Angeles; the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; the County of San Bernardino; and the San BernardinoCounty Sheriff's Department (collectively, "Defendants"),¹ asserting claims for injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C § 1983 based on violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; and common law false imprisonment. See Compl., Dkt. # 1 (Mar. 15, 2010). On August 11, 2010, the Court granted the L.A. County Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend. See Dkt. # 34 (Aug. 11, 2010).

Now, pending before the Court are the L.A. County Defendants' and S.B. County Defendants' motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. #52 (Mar. 7, 2011); Dkt. # 57 (Mar. 8, 2011).

II. Factual Background

A. Warrant Systems and Procedures

Given the centrality of warrant procedures to this lawsuit, the Court finds it appropriate to begin with a brief overview of California's warrant systems. There are two databases which law enforcement officials can access to ascertain whether an outstanding warrant exists for a particular individual's arrest. The California Department of Justice ("CDOJ") operates and maintains a Wanted Persons System ("WPS") containing information about warrants issued by California courts. Cook Decl, ¶21, Exs. DD-EE. [Dkt. # 85 (June 8, 2011)]. The Los Angeles Countywide Warrant System ("CWS") is the warrant depository for warrants issued by Los Angeles County courts.² See Holliday Decl. ¶ 4 [Dkt. # 53 (Mar. 7, 2011)].

The information provided on warrants generally includes the subject's name, date of birth, address, and physical descriptors. In addition, warrants can also contain unique numerical identifiers, such as social security numbers or driver's licenses, as well as various fingerprint-based identification numbers. Fingerprint-based identifiers are assigned at local, state, and national levels. For instance, the CDOJ assigns a California Identification Index ("CII") number to each set of fingerprints it indexes and stores. Nursall Decl., ¶4 [Dkt. # 57-5 (Mar. 8, 2011)]. A CII number can be used to generate an individual's criminal history and can be linked to that person's full name, aliases, birth date, residential addresses, and unique identifiers such as the person's social security number, driver's license number, and FBI number. ³ Id. Los Angeles County agencies, similarly, assign an "L.A. Main" number; San Bernardino agencies assign a "Cal I.D." number. Cook Supp. Decl., Ex. B (Nursall Depo. 10:11-16, 10:23-11:9) [Dkt. # 87 (June 8, 2011)]. In addition, law enforcement agencies have the ability to look up an individual's criminal history and identifying information by inputting his name and date of birth into a California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System ("CLETS") terminal. Walstrom Decl. ¶ 6 [Dkt. # 57 (Mar. 8, 2011)].

Since 1988, it has been the policy of the County of Los Angeles to update the investigation field of CWS information with an "exoneration" entry when an individual who has been arrested on a CWS warrant is later determined to be the wrong person. Holliday Decl. ¶¶ 6,7 [Dkt. # 53 (Mar. 7, 2011)]. An "exoneration" entry typically identifies the individual who was mistakenly arrested on the warrant and explains why the individual was exonerated on the warrant. Id. at ¶ 7. For instance, it might note that the individual mistakenly arrested had a different CII number, different fingerprints, or a different physical description than the warrant subject. Id. When law enforcement personnel are considering arresting and booking an individual on a CWS warrant, they are required to contact CWS to verify that the warrant is stillactive. Id. at ¶ 9. After CWS confirms the warrant is still active, it will provide a Warrant Information Sheet ("WIS") to the arresting/booking officers for the purpose of verifying that the suspect they are considering booking on the warrant is truly the subject of the warrant. The WIS includes all CWS data, including any information about an exoneration, in the investigation field. Id. ¶ 10.

When an arrestee is booked in San Bernardino County, a Live Scan is conducted to obtain the arrestee's fingerprints, which are then recorded and transmitted to the CDOJ. Nursall Decl. ¶ 3 [Dkt. # 57 (Mar. 8, 2011)]. If fingerprints are already on file, the corresponding identification numbers and criminal history will then be transmitted back to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Id. ¶ 4. The agency then compares the Live Scan report to the information provided by the arrestee, and places the Live Scan Report in the arrestee's booking jacket. Id. If there is a discrepancy between the CII number for the arrestee and the CII number that appears on the face of the warrant for which the arrestee is detained, the officer is instructed to contact the CAL-ID fingerprint examiners and physically examine the prints to determine whether the arrestee is the true subject of the warrant. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

B. Plaintiff's Arrests

1. 1989 Incident

On July 12, 1985, a Los Angeles Superior Court issued an arrest warrant for apprehension of an individual named Santiago Rivera⁴ on charges of felony manslaughter (violation of Cal. Penal Code §192.3(c)), and violations of Cal. Vehicle Code §§ 23153 (a) and 23153 (b). See LA Def. Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. 1 [Dkt. # 54-1 (Mar. 7, 2011)]; Arevalo Decl. ¶ 4 [Dkt. # 53 (Mar. 7, 2011)]. The criminal complaint associated with this warrant was assigned number A091945. RJN, Ex. 2.

Approximately four years later, on June 18, 1989, Montclair police arrested Plaintiff on this warrant. FAC ¶ 28; see also Beccera Decl., Ex. F (Rivera Depo. 8:2-12:25) [Dkt. # 53 (Mar. 7, 2011)]. Plaintiff was initially booked in the San Bernardino County jail before being transferred to the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Id. 25:6-28:24; RJN,Ex. 1. He was released approximately nine days later, on June 27, 1989, after a fingerprint comparison revealed that he was not the true subject of the warrant. Cook Decl., Ex. E [Dkt. # 85 (June 8, 2011)]. Upon being released from custody, Plaintiff was issued a judicial clearance form, which he could present to the police in the event he was ever mistakenly arrested on the warrant again. Rivera Depo. at 66:10-25; RJN, Ex. 3. On July 6, 1989, the warrant was reissued and inputted into the court's Trial Court Information System, which was subsequently transferred electronically into CWS. Arevalo Decl. ¶ 7. The re-issued warrant allegedly did not include any information indicating that Plaintiff had been wrongfully arrested and subsequently cleared of the warrant. Opp'n 4:2-9; see also S.B. Mot., Ex. B at 60 (Warrant Information Sheet) [Dkt. # 57 (Mar. 8, 2011)].

2. 2009 Incident

On the morning of March 7, 2009, Plaintiff was riding in a car that was stopped by San Bernardino deputies due to a missing license plate. Beaton Decl., ¶ 2 [Dkt. # 57-2 (Mar. 8, 2011)]; Hartleben Decl., ¶2 [Dkt. # 57-3 (Mar. 8, 2011)]. The deputies asked Plaintiff for a copy of his identification and proceeded to run a record check via WPS to ascertain whether Plaintiff had any outstanding warrants. Beaton Decl., ¶ 4. The records check revealed that an individual named Santiago Rivera, with the same exact date of birth, had an active outstanding felony warrant out of Los Angeles County for violations of Cal. Penal Code § 192.3(c) and Cal. Vehicle Code §§ 23153 (a) and 23153 (b). Id. Deputy Hartleben then spoke with Plaintiff, who protested that he was not the warrant's subject. Hartleben Decl., ¶ 4. Plaintiff told the officers that he had previously been arrested and jailed on the warrant in 1989, and was issued paperwork by a court indicating he had been cleared of the charges. Id. ¶ 5; see also Beccera Decl., Ex. F (Rivera Depo. 85:11-13) [Dkt. # 53 (Mar. 7, 2011)]. When Hartleben asked to see the paperwork, however, Plaintiff replied that he could not locate it.

The deputies contacted then dispatch to confirm that the warrant was active and obtain the physical description/descriptors on the warrant for purposes of comparison. Beaton Decl., ¶ 5; Hartleben Decl., ¶ 4. Dispatch informed the deputies that Los Angeles County Warrant No. CCA09194501 was issued for a person named Santiago Rivera on July 6, 1989, and that the...