Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ali M. DUALEH; Jawaher Shreh, individually and on behalf of their minor children S.M. (age 11), A.M. (age 8), A.M. (age 7), A.M. (age 5), A.M. (age 4), and S.M. (8 months); Mohammed Mirreh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, and Thomas Phillips; Kevin Keyes; Lance Gray; Keith King; Dave Liebman; Jeff McClane, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-35067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 2012.
    Filed Jan. 18, 2012.
    Timothy Kent Ford, Esquire, David Whedbee, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Harold Malkin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
    Jeremy W. Culumber, Richard Brooks Jolley, Esquire, Keating Bucklin & McCormack Inc. P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Ali Dualeh and Jawaher Shreh appeál (1) the district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law, (2) the court’s jury instruction that placed the burden of proof on plaintiffs and (3) the court’s order granting summary judgment to Agent Thomas Phillips.

1. The district court did not err by denying the plaintiffs’ motions for judgment as a matter of law. The knock-and-announce requirement may be excused by the presence of exigent circumstances. See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 579 (9th Cir.2004). The municipal officer defendants presented evidence that they saw a person look down at them from the second floor of the Dualeh residence when they were crossing an open parking lot to serve drug-related search and arrest warrants. A reasonable juror could find that exigent circumstances existed based on the officers’ fear for their personal safety or a concern for the destruction of evidence.

2. The district court did not err by instructing the jury that the plaintiffs had the ultimate burden of proof and the defendants had the burden of producing evidence of exigent circumstances. The instruction was consistent with Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir.1994).

3. Because we hold that plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and uphold the jury verdict in favor of the municipal officer defendants, we need not reach whether the district court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against Agent Phillips.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.