Williams v. County of Santa Barbara

• Decision Date: 14 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. CV00-11122 AHM (JWJx).,CV00-11122 AHM (JWJx).
• Citation: 272 F.Supp.2d 995
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Harry David WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al., Defendants.

272 F.Supp.2d 995

Harry David WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al., Defendants.

No. CV00-11122 AHM (JWJx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

July 14, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donald G. Norris, Douglas F. Galanter, Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly, Los Angeles, CA, Donald G. Norris, Douglas F. Galanter, Weissmann, Wolff, Berman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall, Beverly Hills, CA, Vito Costanzo, Holland & Knight, Los Angeles, CA, Murray J. Robertson, Borchard & Baur, Mission Viejo, CA, Kimberly R. Colombo, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Jake Stoddard, Santa Barbara County Counsel, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendants.

Michael D. Allen, David D. Lawrence, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, Glendale, CA, for Araceli Andalon.

Barbara A. Noble, CAAG — Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Brenton Chinn.

ORDER RE MOTION OF MEYER ET AL. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST DALE AND LIA SCHADE.

MATZ, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 999
                 II. FACTS .............................................................................1000
                     A. Affidavit's Allegations About Dale Schade ......................................1001
                     B. Affidavit's Allegations About Lia Schade .......................................1002
                     C. Detention of Dale Schade .......................................................1002
                     D. Searches of Lia Schade .........................................................1003
                III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .........................................................1003
                 IV. ANALYSIS ..........................................................................1004
                     A. The Warrants Were Not Supported By Probable Cause ..............................1005
                        1. On the Face of the Affidavit, There Was No Probable Cause For The
                            Issuance Of The Warrant As To Dale Schade ..................................1005
                        2. On The Face of the Affidavit, There Was No Probable Cause For The
                            Issuance Of The Warrant As to Lia Schade ...................................1006
                        3. The Warrants Were Overbroad .................................................1007
                        4. Means And Those Officers Who Executed The Warrants After
                            Reading The Affidavit Are Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity ...............1007
                

                     B. Dale Schade's Franks v. Delaware Claim .........................................1009
                     C. Defendants Birchim and Meyer are Entitled to Qualified Immunity on
                         Dale Schade's Unlawful Detention Claims .......................................1013
                        1. Was Schade Detained? ........................................................1014
                        2. Assuming Schade Was Detained, Was His Detention Nevertheless
                            Lawful? ....................................................................1014
                     D. Defendants Burridge and Standley are Not Entitled to Summary
                         Judgment Regarding their Searches of Lia Schade's Office, Car, Purse
                         and Day planner ...............................................................1016
                     E. The Schades' Conspiracy Claims .................................................1018
                        1. Conspiracy to Obtain a Warrant Unsupported By Probable Cause ................1018
                        2. Conspiracy to Obtain a Warrant By Including Misleading Information
                            in the Affidavit ...........................................................1019
                  V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................1020
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Harry David Williams, Janelle Hopps, Robert Dale Schade and Lia Marie Schade¹ brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Their suit arises from, but is not limited to, a series of search warrants that were executed beginning on January 20, 2000 for at least 16 locations. 12/20/02 Means et al. MSJ (Means Decl.) ¶ 7; Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 29. The warrants were the culmination of a wide-ranging investigation that began some 46 months previously, in March 1996. The warrants were based on an affidavit Detective Means of the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department ("SBSD") had prepared and were approved by Judge William McLafferty of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. The Defendants are Santa Barbara County ("SBC"); the SBSD; James Thomas (the Sheriff of SBC at the time of the acts alleged); James Auchincloss (an SBC Deputy District Attorney); Detective Means and various officers and other employees of the SBSD. The Fourth Amended Complaint also names as defendants an informant named Araceli Andalon, Andalon's "handler" Gail Hermreck (an SBC probation officer) and Brenton Chinn of the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics.

Plaintiff Dale Schade was a SBSD Lieutenant until he retired in March 1999. Mot. Exh. D (Means Affidavit in Support of Warrant ("Affidavit")) at 7. Schade was in charge of the Santa Ynez Substation between 1994 and May 1998. Mot. Exh. X at 19:4-9 (D. Schade Depo.); Reply Exh. LLL at 163:15-164:2 (D. Schade Depo.). Thereafter, he was assigned to the SBC jail until his retirement. Mot. Exh. X at 19:10-14. Plaintiff Lia Schade married Dale Schade sometime in 1997. Opp. Exh. F at 172-73, 186.2. She is the Chief Financial Officer of the SBSD. Opp. (L. Schade Decl.) ¶ 1. She held that position at the time that Means was drafting the Affidavit. Id.; Aff't at 7.

Plaintiffs Dale and Lia Schade challenge the facial validity of the specific warrant applicable to them (there was one such warrant, as well as another warrant for their credit union account), arguing that the Affidavit did not provide probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be located in their possession, at their residence, in their vehicles, or at Lia Schade's office. The Schades also allege a claim based on Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), Dale Schade alleges an unlawful detention claim and Lia Schade alleges an unlawful search claim.

Fourteen Defendants — Meyer, Birchim, Means, Palera, Olmstead, Gracey, Dollar, Cintron, Swopes, Standley, Burridge, Hermreck, Auchincloss and Julie McCammon ("SBC Defendants") — have moved for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs Dale and Lia Schade.² All SBC Defendants except Hermreck and Auchincloss are SBSD employees.

On March 21, 2003, the Court issued a 44 page ruling on a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Means and a few others against the claims of Plaintiff Harry David Williams. In essence, the Court ruled that Means and certain other defendants employed by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, as well as Defendants Hermreck and Auchincloss, were not entitled to qualified immunity regarding most of the items seized from Williams's house, which Williams had alleged were obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court found, however, that Means was entitled to qualified immunity on Williams's Franks v. Delaware claim.

In this Court's March 21, 2003 ruling, the Court also adopted a ruling previously made by Judge Harry L. Hupp in this case, to the effect that the Affidavit on its face showed probable cause that Harry David Williams had engaged in criminal money laundering, justifying the issuance of a search warrant as to him.³ Judge Hupp's ruling was explicitly confined to the claims asserted by Williams. Indeed, at a Scheduling Conference held before this Court on July 31, 2002, this Court explicitly noted that "Judge Hupp's Order does not extend to the Schade plaintiffs, and ... the Schades are still entitled to establish the absence of probable cause." For the reasons set forth below, the Schades have done so, and for the most part the Moving Parties' motion is therefore DENIED, with the exception that Defendants Meyer and Birchim's motion on Dale Schade's wrongful detention claim is GRANTED and certain individual defendants are entitled to Summary Adjudication on the Schades' conspiracy claims.

II. FACTS

Many of the facts relevant to this motion were set out in the Court's March 21, 2003 Order. The Court will not repeat all those facts here, but incorporates them by reference. Excerpts of the Affidavit relevant to the Court's analysis of the Schade warrant are included in Appendix A to this Order.

Defendant Means submitted the same Affidavit to support separate search warrants he sought for a total of 16 locations, 12/20/02 Means et al. MSJ (Means Decl.) ¶ 7. The warrants were linked to a total of 7 suspects, including Williams and the Schades. Id. ¶¶ 3, 9. The last section in each Affidavit described the particular location and/or person to be searched, except that only one Affidavit was submitted for the Schades and the properties associated with them.

Means obtained a warrant authorizing searches of the Schades' home in Lompoc, California, their persons and their four vehicles. The property that he sought authorization to search and seize included "all documents relating to [the Schades'] personal/business financial activities." Specifically included in that category were virtually every conceivable kind of document ranging from signature cards, minutes, statements, checks, deposit forms, 1099 forms, loan applications, correspondence, agreements, credit reports, mortgages, certificates of deposit, IRA documents, wire transfers, safe deposit boxes and the like. In addition, Means sought (and obtained) permission to search and seize a vast array of "entity formation" (i.e. business) records; computer-tapes and discs; employment records; personal correspondence; CD-ROMs; "video cameras/camcorders/VCRs and other image capturing/reproducing devices;" personal telephone books; address books; telephone bills; cancelled mail envelopes...