FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIM L. JOHNSON; SUN MIN LEE,  Nos. 07-55935

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 07-56238

and v.

07-56547

ANGELA WALTON, 

D.C. No. Defendant-Appellant.

CV-05-06699-SJO

OPINION 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

November 17, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed March 13, 2009

Before: Myron H. Bright,* Stephen S. Trott, and

Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bright

*The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge

for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

3231
COUNSEL

Thomas C. Hurrell and Melinda Cantrall, Los Angeles, California, for the appellant. 

Donald G. Norris, Los Angeles, California, for the appellees.

JOHNSON v. WALTON 3233
OPINION

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 

This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed

by appellees-plaintiffs Kim L. Johnson (“Kim”) and Sun Min

Lee (“Sun Min”), in which they were awarded damages from

appellant-defendant Officer Angela Walton (“Officer Walton”) for an illegal search and seizure of their personal property from their home and alleged detention in violation of the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. On appeal, Officer Walton argues that the district court erred by 1) concluding that

the search warrant lacked probable cause or was otherwise

invalid, 2) refusing to allow her to introduce evidence outside

the warrant to show that she reasonably believed probable

cause existed, 3) denying her request for qualified immunity,1

and 4) awarding attorneys’ fees to Sun Min and Kim.2 We

reverse the district court and determine that Officer Walton

merits qualified immunity, and we vacate the attorneys’ fees

and expense awards. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Kim and Sun Min shared a residence and home with Sun

Hi Lee (“Sun Hi”) and Wilford Johnson (“Wilford”), who

owned and operated a house of prostitution under the guise of

a legitimate business named Oriental Acupressure. Kim, an

aspiring professional golfer, is the adult son of Sun Hi and

Wilford, and Sun Min, a homemaker, is Sun Hi’s sister. All

1Parties intending to appeal the determination of qualified immunity

must ordinarily appeal before final judgment. See Price v. Kramer, 200

F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, however, Officer Walton lacked

such an opportunity because the district court certified her interlocutory

appeal on qualified immunity as forfeited. See Chuman v. Wright, 960

F.2d 105, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). 

2Walton also argues that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars

appellees’ claims, but Heck does not apply because neither appellee was

convicted of any crime. 

3234 JOHNSON v. WALTON
four resided at a home located on Paseo De Castana in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. 

Officer Walton, a sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, served as one of the lead officers in investigating a prostitution ring in Los Angeles. In the summer of

2003, the investigation focused on JHJ Educational College,

which was suspected of selling massage certificates fraudulently for $2,500 and arranging for the certificate holder to

engage in prostitution. 

During the course of the investigation, an undercover

female officer, serving as a decoy, fraudulently bought a massage certificate from JHJ Educational College. The school’s

CEO told the decoy that a job could be arranged for her that

paid $20,000 per month. The CEO further told the decoy that

she needed to be careful of undercover officers, and if she

detected such an officer, she should then only perform legitimate massage techniques. The CEO assigned the decoy to

Oriental Acupressure and said that the owner of the business,

later identified as Sun Hi (sister of Sun Min and mother of

Kim), had much experience and “is familiar with how things

are.” The CEO also stated that the owner of the business

would be contacted and told that the decoy would be reporting

for work. 

The decoy later went to Oriental Acupressure to meet with

Sun Hi, the owner, where the decoy observed five or six

scantily clad women leading men around the various rooms.

The men wore nothing but small towels. The decoy also saw

many of the women handing unspecified amounts of cash to

Sun Hi. During the decoy’s meeting with Sun Hi, Sun Hi

asked her if she had any experience working in such a business and if she had sexual experience with men. Sun Hi told

the decoy that she would be furnished with a regular customer. 

During the operation, officers recorded the license plate of

a black Mercedes Benz driven by a person fitting Sun Hi’s

JOHNSON v. WALTON 3235
description. A Department of Motor Vehicles search of the

license plate database showed that the registered owner was

Sun Hi of Paseo De Castana, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. On

a separate occasion, Officer Walton drove by the Paseo De

Castana home at approximately 6:30 p.m., observing that

black Mercedes Benz parked in the driveway. 

Based on the information resulting from the investigation,

including lewd descriptions of men’s prostitution experiences

at Oriental Acupressure on a website that promoted houses of

prostitution, Walton determined that Oriental Acupressure

was a front for prostitution. Officer Walton requested a search

warrant for JHJ Educational College and Star Health Center,

Oriental Acupressure, a home on Lafeyette Park Place, the

appellees’ home on Paseo De Castana, cars parked at the

home, and a business on S. Van Ness Avenue. 

Officer Walton described all her information in the warrant

application, which incorporated a “Statement of Probable

Cause” (“SPC”) and, in turn, incorporated various attached

reports of an undercover Sheriff’s Deputy named Y. Nam.

The SPC essentially summarized Officer Walton’s information regarding the investigation and particularly stated, “The

manager of the [house of prostitution] forwards all monies

charged for ‘massage services’ to the owner(s) of the location.” 

The warrant application also listed Sun Hi as the owner of

Oriental Acupressure and included a “Statement of Affiant,”

in which Walton described her own seven-year employment

with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, her investigative work of approximately seventy massage parlors, and

her extensive experience in assisting with the execution of

search warrants. 

In the additional, separate affidavit attached to the warrant,

Officer Walton stated that the SPC was true and that based

thereon she had probable cause to believe that the property

3236 JOHNSON v. WALTON
described in the warrant application was lawfully seizable.

The locations to be searched included three business locations

and two residences, one the residence of Kim and Sun Min

and the other that of Sun Ok Joo, CEO of JHJ Educational

College. 

A magistrate judge reviewed the warrant application and

approved the search warrant, finding that probable cause

existed for the search. Sheriff’s Department personnel other

than Walton executed the search warrant. At Sun Hi and Wilford’s residence, the officers found and seized $2,434,000 in

cash in cardboard boxes. At Oriental Acupressure, the business establishment, they seized $1,020 and approximately 400

condoms. Interviews with customers and massage technicians

revealed that customers engaged in prostitution with the massage technicians for $100. 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2004, Sun Hi and Wilford faced state criminal

charges for multiple counts of pimping, pandering by procuring, and money laundering. The Superior Court suppressed

the evidence seized at Sun Hi and Wilford’s residence. In

denying the Leon good faith exception, the Superior Court

reviewed whether “an abundant level of sufficient probable

cause” supported the warrant, instead of focusing on whether

an “indicia of probable cause” existed to search the residence.

In June 2004, the Internal Revenue Service obtained a seizure warrant for $2,789,881.82, the cash previously seized by

the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. These funds

and others were later forfeited to the United States as part of

a plea agreement by Sun Hi and Wilford to federal felony

charges of attempting to defeat or evade income taxes. The

state court criminal case was resolved based on the federal

plea. 

Sun Min and Kim, as plaintiffs, subsequently filed a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action, seeking damages from Officer Walton,

JOHNSON v. WALTON 3237
four other members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

Department, and the County of Los Angeles for violating their

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through the search

of their home in the course of the prostitution investigation.

Officer Walton and other defendants moved for summary

judgment, which the district court granted in part. The court

denied Officer Walton qualified immunity because, in its

view, insufficient evidence existed “to establish a fair probability that any contraband or evidence of a crime might be

found at [Sun Min and Kim’s] residence [on Paseo De

Castana].” The court determined, however, that a genuine

issue of material fact still existed as to whether there was

probable cause to search the residence. 

The court subsequently granted Sun Min and Kim’s motion

for judgment as to Officer Walton. 

Following a trial on the issue of damages only, a jury

awarded Kim $80,000 for damages to his career as an aspiring

professional golfer, and homemaker Sun Min $100 for her

damages. The district court also awarded Kim and Sun Min

$260,782.50 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.3

Officer Walton timely appealed, arguing, as we have

already noted, that probable cause existed for the search warrant and, if not, she should be allowed to introduce evidence

outside the warrant to show that she reasonably believed

probable cause existed. Walton also argues that she is entitled

to qualified immunity and contests the attorneys’ fees

awarded to Sun Min and Kim. 

III. ANALYSIS

We review the district court’s determination of qualified

immunity de novo. Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d

3The case against other defendants was dismissed by court orders. 

3238 JOHNSON v. WALTON
1197, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). We also review whether the Leon

good faith exception applies de novo. United States v. Dozier,

844 F.2d 701, 707 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity

balances “the need to hold public officials accountable when

they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they

perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 129

S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009). 

[1] At the core of the Fourth Amendment is a person’s right

to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion at home.

See, e.g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980).

Therefore, when a magistrate judge issues a warrant for the

search of a residence, the judge must consider whether there

exists a sufficient nexus between the residence and the contraband sought. For a warrant to issue, the judge must determine

that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence at the residence. See United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973,

978 (9th Cir. 2002). 

[2] Even if a warrant lacks probable cause, however, the

Leon good faith exception preserves the reasonableness of the

subsequent search unless the warrant is so lacking in indicia

of probable cause so as to render official belief in its existence

entirely unreasonable. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.

897, 923 (1984); see also Ortiz v. Van Auken, 887 F.2d 1366,

1371 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leon teaches that inadequate probable

cause does not necessarily render a warrant facially invalid

nor prevent reasonable belief in the existence of probable

cause.”). 

Furthermore, the Leon standard guides the determination of

whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from

JOHNSON v. WALTON 3239
§ 1983 liability. Officers lose their shield of qualified immunity “[o]nly where the warrant application is so lacking in

indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its

existence unreasonable.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344-

45 (1986) (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923); see also KRL v.

Estate of Moore, 512 F.3d 1184, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2008). 

[3] In this case, based on the record, Officer Walton’s

belief that probable cause existed to search Sun Hi and Wilford’s home on Paseo De Castana was not unreasonable. The

police investigation, as documented in the warrant application, indicated that Oriental Acupressure served as a house of

prostitution. The warrant application also noted that typically

“[t]he manager of the [house of prostitution] forwards all

monies charged for ‘massage services’ to the owner(s) of the

location.” The warrant application then stated that the owner

of the house of prostitution, Sun Hi, resided at Paseo De

Castana. As the warrant application makes clear, investigators

uncovered this information by observing a person of Sun Hi’s

description driving a 2001 black Mercedes Benz, which Officer Walton saw parked in the driveway of the Paseo De

Castana residence. Significantly, a Department of Motor

Vehicles search based on the license plate revealed that the

owner of the Mercedes Benz, Sun Hi, resided at the Paseo De

Castana address. Finally, the warrant application elaborated

upon Officer Walton’s lengthy experience as a detective with

the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. During the

nineteen months prior to filing the instant warrant application

affidavit, Officer Walton had participated in approximately

seventy massage parlor investigations and assisted in the execution of numerous search warrants. On these undisputed

facts, the warrant application was not so lacking in indicia of

probable cause so as to render unreasonable Officer Walton’s

belief that she could validly apply for a search warrant. 

[4] A better warrant application in this case would have

explicitly stated that, in Officer Walton’s investigative experience, she knows that owners of prostitution houses often keep

3240 JOHNSON v. WALTON
evidence of these illegal businesses, including money from

the businesses, in their homes. Nevertheless, Walton’s affidavit is not so lacking in indicia of probable cause so as to render a reasonable officer’s belief in the existence of probable

cause unreasonable. See KRL, 512 F.3d at 1190 (“Our cases

repeatedly emphasize this distinction between warrants with

disputable probable cause and warrants so lacking in probable

cause that no reasonable officer would view them as valid.”).

Here, the Leon exception therefore applies and Officer Walton is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. See Leon, 468

U.S. at 923; Malley, 475 U.S. 344-45. In light of our holding,

we do not reach Officer Walton’s other arguments. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district

court’s judgment denying Officer Walton qualified immunity,

REMAND for dismissal of the action, and VACATE the

award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in favor of Sun Min

and Kim. 

JOHNSON v. WALTON 3241