Thomas v. Dillard

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation818 F.3d 864
Docket NumberNo. 13–55889.,13–55889.
Parties Correll L. THOMAS, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. C. DILLARD, Police Officer, Defendant–Appellant, and Palomar Community College District, Defendant.
Decision Date05 April 2016

Randall L. Winet, Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes, Vista, CA, for DefendantAppellant.

Eugene G. Iredale (argued), Iredale and Yoo, San Diego, CA; Mervyn S. Lazarus, Law Offices of Mervyn S. Lazarus, Newport Beach, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before: FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, RAYMOND C. FISHER and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Fisher

; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge BEA.

OPINION

FISHER

, Circuit Judge:

Palomar College Police Officer Christopher Dillard responded to a call to investigate a man pushing a woman in a public area on the college's campus. There he found Correll Thomas, a student at the college who had been hanging out with and kissing his girlfriend, Amy Husky. Although Thomas was unarmed and in fact had committed no act of domestic violence, Dillard demanded Thomas submit to a search for weapons, believing police officers are free to conduct a Terry frisk whenever they are investigating a potential "domestic violence" incident, regardless of the specific circumstances of the call or the facts encountered at the scene.1 When Thomas refused to be searched, Dillard tased him. Thomas sued Dillard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, asserting unlawful seizure and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Dillard qualified immunity on summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Thomas on the issue of liability. Dillard appeals.

We address whether a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk, searching a suspect for weapons, based solely on the perceived domestic violence nature of the investigation. We hold that, although the domestic violence nature of a police investigation is a relevant consideration in assessing whether there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous, it is not alone sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. We therefore hold Dillard violated Thomas' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure by detaining him for the purpose of performing a Terry frisk. Because it was not clearly established at the time that the perceived domestic violence nature of an investigation was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, however, we hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity. We further hold Dillard used excessive force when he tased Thomas in order to force him to submit to the Terry frisk against his consent. Given the frisk was unlawful and unnecessary, Dillard used unreasonable force. Nonetheless, given the unsettled state of the law regarding the use of Tasers at the time, we again hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity. Given the Supreme Court's instructions that we may not define clearly established law at too high a level of generality, it was not clearly established at the time of Dillard's actions that an officer who mistakenly but reasonably believed he had the right to conduct a Terry frisk could not deploy a Taser in dart mode to overcome a suspect's resistance to the frisk. Accordingly, without in any way endorsing Dillard's actions or overlooking the indignities those actions caused Thomas to suffer, we reverse the order of the district court and hold Dillard is entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

I. BACKGROUND

Because we are reviewing the denial of Dillard's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we assume Thomas' version of disputed facts and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 439 (9th Cir.2011)

(en banc).

At approximately 3:42 pm on September 21, 2010, the Palomar College Police Department dispatched Officer Dillard to the college's Escondido campus to respond to a domestic violence call involving a black male. Dillard spoke to a college administrator on the north side of campus, but was unable to obtain any further details pertaining to the domestic violence incident that may have prompted the call. The record contains virtually no information about this call. We have no description of the suspect other than Dillard's belief that the call mentioned a black male, no description of the what the alleged "domestic violence" may have entailed and no information about where the incident might have occurred.

Approximately 40 minutes later, at 4:20 pm, while he was speaking with the administrator, Dillard received a call to investigate a male wearing a purple shirt pushing a female near some storage containers on the south side of the Escondido campus. A male wearing a purple shirt pushing a female was the entire scope of the call. There was no further description of the "suspect," or of the alleged "pushing," and the call made no mention of domestic violence. When Dillard arrived on the scene, he first encountered a community service officer who had also responded to the call, and who would remain present throughout the ensuing incident.2 Dillard then saw a male with a purple shirt and a female come out from behind the storage containers.3 These were Thomas, who is African–American, and his girlfriend, Husky.4

Dillard got out of his police car, telling Thomas and Husky as he did so that no one was in trouble. Dillard stopped about 10 feet away from Thomas and Husky, who were standing next to each other. Dillard saw no indication that a crime had occurred. Husky exhibited no signs of domestic violence. She showed no signs of injury. She had not been crying. She did not appear distraught. The area was open to the public. Thomas and Husky looked like normal college students. Their hands appeared empty. They may have appeared startled or fidgety, but, as Dillard testified, these were normal behaviors.

Dillard asked Thomas and Husky whether they had identification. Thomas responded that he did; Husky said she did not. Dillard did not ask to see the identification. Instead, he asked Thomas whether he had any weapons on him. When Thomas responded that he did not, Dillard asked Thomas whether he would mind being searched for weapons. This was approximately 15 seconds into the encounter. Thomas responded that he did mind.

Dillard approached Thomas and asked again whether he would consent to a search for weapons. When Thomas declined, Dillard told Thomas he had received a call "about a guy in a purple shirt pushing around a girl." Thomas and Husky both denied they had seen anything or had done anything wrong. They both denied they were fighting, or that Thomas was pushing Husky. Husky told Dillard they had just been kissing behind the storage containers. Dillard asked Thomas again for consent to search for weapons, and Thomas again refused. Dillard moved toward Thomas, attempting to grab him and place him a controlled hold for the purpose of conducting a frisk. When Thomas stepped away to avoid being grabbed, Dillard backed off, pulled out his Taser, pointed it at Thomas and told Thomas he was going to search him. This occurred approximately 30 to 40 seconds into the encounter. Husky, meanwhile, was yelling at Dillard that Thomas had done nothing wrong.

Thomas continued to respond to Dillard's questions but to withhold his consent to being searched. He was not aggressive or belligerent. Dillard called for backup and kept his Taser pointed at Thomas. Dillard told Thomas to put his hands in the air, step forward and drop to his knees. Thomas refused to do so. In response to the call for backup, a uniformed Escondido police officer arrived on the scene and pointed her handgun at Thomas from a distance of 15 feet away. When the Escondido officer told Thomas to put up his hands, he did so. Dillard told Thomas that if he did not get down on his knees by the count of three, Dillard would tase him. Dillard counted to three, and, when Thomas did not comply, tased Thomas. Dillard fired the Taser in dart mode, discharging a set of electrified barbs that lodged in Thomas' chest and delivered an incapacitating surge of electrical current to his body. This occurred approximately six minutes into the encounter. Thomas was handcuffed, searched (no weapons were found), treated by paramedics, arrested and charged with unlawfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer. See Cal.Penal Code § 148(a)(1)

. The charges were dismissed six months later.

Thomas filed suit against Dillard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful seizure and excessive force. He also alleged claims under California state law for negligence and violation of California Civil Code § 52.1. Dillard moved for summary judgment, and Thomas cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The district court denied Dillard's motion and granted Thomas' motion. The court ruled Dillard lacked reasonable suspicion to believe Thomas was armed and dangerous, and thus that Dillard unlawfully seized Thomas for the purpose of conducting a weapons search. The court also denied qualified immunity for this seizure, reasoning:

Having determined the existence of a constitutional violation, the Court considers whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of its occurrence. At the time Officer Dillard tased Thomas to force his compliance with a weapons' search, it was clearly established that such a search is unreasonable unless supported by the officer's reasonable suspicion that the person to be searched is armed and dangerous. Ramirez [v. City of Buena Park], 560 F.3d [1012,] 1023

[ (9th Cir.2009) ]. There was no objective evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that Thomas had a weapon. Officer Dillard's explanation, based on his subjective characterization that this was a domestic violence call and therefore necessitated a search without any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • State v. Laster
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 19, 2021
    ...stop not unreasonable as long as the unrelated inquiry does "not measurably extend the duration of the stop"); Thomas v. Dillard , 818 F.3d 864, 875 (9th Cir. 2016) (officer may request consent to search without cause beyond the initial justification for a stop as long as subject is free to......
  • Lawrence v. City of S.F.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 15, 2017
    ...or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’ " Thomas v. Dillard , 818 F.3d 864, 889 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended (May 5, 2016) (quoting Mattos , 661 F.3d at 441 ). "These factors, however, are not exclusive. Rather, [courts] ......
  • State v. Laster
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 19, 2021
    ... ... require that an ... officer's particularized suspicion be certain or ... ultimately correct. See State v. Thomas, 2008 MT ... 206, ¶ 10, 344 Mont. 150, 186 P.3d 864; ... Henderson, ¶ 12; Gopher, 193 Mont, at ... 192, 631 P.2d at 295; Cortez, 449 U.S ... traffic stop not unreasonable as long as the unrelated ... inquiry does "not measurably extend the duration of the ... stop"); Thomas v. Dillard, 818 F.3d 864, 875 ... (9th Cir. 2016) (officer may request consent to search ... without cause beyond the initial justification for a stop as ... ...
  • United States v. Job
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 14, 2017
    ...Terry allows a "brief stop" where an officer has "reasonable suspicion to believe ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’ " Thomas v. Dillard , 818 F.3d 864, 874 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Terry , 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ); see also United States v. Crapser , 472 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (officer "need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed"); see, e.g., Thomas v. Dillard (9th Cir.2016) 818 F.3d 864, 877-78 (fact that officer was responding to domestic-violence call, without more, did not establish reasonable suspicion to believe suspec......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...The Clergy Cases I, In re, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360 (2d Dist. 2010)—Ch. 4-C, §1.8.4; §10.2.1(2) Thomas v. Dillard, 818 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2016)—Ch. 5-A, §3.2.2(3)(a) Thomas v. State, 422 Md. 67, 29 A.3d 286 (2011)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(c)[1][b] Thurston v. Clark, 107 Cal. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT