Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00328-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
I. Barrimond
Defendant
J. Capriola
Defendant
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Zella Maye Freeman
Plaintiff
R. Garrison
Defendant
J. Hollins
Defendant
R. Perez
Defendant
A. Simonson
Defendant
Mark A. Yee
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 This motion is not typically brought in a civil proceeding 1

but rather in criminal proceedings. The issue in this motion is

more properly addressed on the merits on a motion for summary

judgment. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZELLA MAYE FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, R. GARRISON

(F.P.D. Badge No. 780), MARK

A. YEE (F.P.D. Badge No. 692),

J. CAPRIOLA (F.S.O. Badge No.

7622), I. BARRIMOND (F.S.O.

Badge No. 1153), J. HOLLINS

(F.S.O. Badge No. 2346), R.

PEREZ (F.S.O. Badge No. 6169),

A. SIMONSON (F.S.O. Badge No.

9364), inclusive, 

Defendants.

1:05-CV-00328 OWW SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR HEARING

REGARDING PROBABLE CAUSE 

1. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Zella Maye Freeman (“Freeman”) moves for a hearing

“regarding probable cause for issuance of a search warrant.”1

Defendants oppose. 

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Freeman filed her complaint on March 8, 2005. (Doc. 1,

Complaint.) After an order was issued granting in part and

denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 8, 2005,

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Freeman filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 24, First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”), Filed June 28, 2005.) On July 7, 2005

Defendants J. Capriola (“Capriola”), I. Barrimond (“Barrimond”),

R. Perez (“Perez”), and A. Simonson (“Simonson”) filed an answer

to Freeman’s FAC. (Doc. 25, Answer to Amended Complaint by

Capriola, Barrimond, Perez, and Simonson.) On July 27, 2005

Defendants City of Fresno, Mark A. Yee (“Yee”), and R. Garrison

(“Garrison”) also filed an answer to Freeman’s FAC. (Doc. 26,

Answer to Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by City of

Fresno, Yee, and Garrison.) Freeman then filed a “motion for

probable cause hearing regarding search warrant.” (Doc. 50,

Motion for Hearing, Filed June 30, 2006.) Defendants filed an

opposition to Freeman’s motion for probable cause on July 14,

2006. (Doc. 55, Memorandum in Opposition re Motion for Probable

Cause “Opposition”.)

3. FACTUAL HISTORY

A. Background of Case

Freeman alleges that on February 19, 2004, at around noon,

City of Fresno and Fresno County peace officers, who were members

of the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium (“M.A.G.E.C.”)

unit, “demanded entry into [her] residence, threatening to shoot

[her] if [she] did not open the door.” (Doc. 24, FAC). Freeman

was babysitting three children, all under five years of age, at

the time. Freeman alleges she suffered injuries, both physical

and mental, as a result of the invasion. She alleges the course

of events as follows:

1. Defendants came to Plaintiff’s front

door demanded entry into Plaintiff’s

residence, and threatened to shoot

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff if she did not open the door

quickly enough.

2. After moving the minor children away

from the door, Plaintiff opened the door

under great physical, emotional, and

mental duress.

3. Defendants without Freeman’s permission

then invaded her residence, with their

weapons drawn. Garrison violently

knocked Freeman onto the floor and

Garrison, Perez, and Simonson trampled

upon her person.

4. Freeman was extremely concerned about

the safety of the minor children in her

care.

5. Garrison , in callous disregard of the

injuries Freeman sustained, ordered her

to quickly stand up, under threat of

force. Freeman was unable to stand up

on her own.

6. Defendants searched Plaintiff’s

residence, detained her under threat of

force and seized Plaintiff’s son’s

locked safe, as well as Plaintiff’s

registered .32 caliber handgun, which

she lawfully owned.

7. Defendants did not show Freeman a search

warrant pertaining to said search of her

residence. 

8. At the time of the above-mentioned acts,

Defendant City of Fresno, had a policy

and custom of negligently hiring,

training, and supervisiong it’s officers

who were assigned to work as part of,

and in support of, the M.A.G.E.C. unit. 

9. On August 17, 2004, Plaintiff submitted

a Claim for Damages, which claims was

denied by Defendant City of Fresno, as

“insufficient” with leave to amend. 

Thereafter, on September 7, 2004

Plaintiff presented an Amended Claim for

Damages for an “Unlimited” amount to

Defendant City of Fresno. (Doc. 24,

Exhibit A.) On September 9, 2004,

Defendant City of Fresno, rejected

Plaintiff’s amended claim in its

entirety and advised Plaintiff that she

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 A copy of Yee’s affidavit was not provided and is no where 2

found in the record. 

4

had six months within which to file a

lawsuit. 

(Doc. 24, FAC.).

B. Freeman’s Request for Hearing on Probable Cause

On June 30, 2006, Freeman moved for a Hearing to determine

whether probable cause existed for the issuance of the underlying

search warrant in this case. (Doc. 50, Motion for Hearing.)

Plaintiff alleges that Detective Yee’s affidavit dated February 2

17, 2004 in support of the warrant does not contain sufficient

facts to establish the finding of probable cause that would

justify a “crisis entry” search of Freeman’s residence. (Id.) 

Freeman’s attorney provided a declaration stating that the facts

in the affidavit are insufficient to establish probable cause. 

(Id., Declaration Wesley E. Stupar.) 

4. DISCUSSION

Freeman moves for a hearing to determine whether probable

cause existed for the issuance of the underlying search warrant

in this case. Freeman alleges that Detective Yee’s affidavit

dated February 17, 2004 in support of the warrant does not

contain sufficient facts to establish the finding of probable

cause that would justify a “crisis entry” search of Freeman’s

residence. Freeman does not provide the court with a copy of the

affidavit. Freeman only includes a declaration from her attorney

concluding that the facts in the affidavit are insufficient to

establish probable cause. Further, Freeman argues that she is

entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the validity of

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Freeman cites to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), 3

a criminal case, for the proposition that she is entitled to an

evidentiary hearing to challenge the validity of the search

warrant. Franks does not apply to this civil proceeding as it

involves a criminal proceeding where the Fourth Amendment

requires that a hearing be held to challenge the truthfulness of

factual statements made in the affidavit where there is a showing

that the affidavit was based on falsity or bad faith omissions of

relevant information. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 155-156. 

5

the search warrant.3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides for summary

judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Lessard v. Applied

Risk Mgmt., 307 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2002); see also

Williams v. County of Santa Barbara, 272 F.Supp. 2d 995, 1003-

1004 (C.D. 2003)(internal quotations omitted). The moving party

bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fairbank v. Johnson,

212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Williams, 272 F.Supp.

2d at 1004. A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of

the suit under the governing substantive law. Id. The burden

then shifts to the non moving party to establish beyond the

pleadings that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. 

It is unclear whether Freeman’s attorney mistakenly intended

to file this motion that applies in a criminal case. The issue

of the accuracy and sufficiency of the affidavit to establish

probable cause for the underlying arrest warrant raises mixed

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

questions of fact and law. In this civil action nothing

prevented Plaintiff from deposing affiant about the affidavit. 

Freeman bears the burden of showing that there is no issue of

material fact as to the existence of probable cause based on the

underlying affidavit. Discovery is closed in this case. 

Plaintiff offers no explanation for failing to conduct the

necessary discovery. 

5. CONCLUSION

This motion for a hearing to determine probable cause for

the arrest warrant is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: August 30, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00328-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 08/31/06 Page 6 of 6