T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e P atri ci a C . F aw se tt , S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** J udge f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T OR R Y S MI T H a n d P AT R I C I A G R AY , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, v. C IT Y O F O A K L A N D , a m un i ci pal c o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 08- 15896 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 5 - C V - 0 4 0 4 5 - E MC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia E dw a r d M . C he n, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 11, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: R Y M E R and M cK E O W N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and F A W S E T T , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** O a kl a nd P ol i c e O f

f i c e r s J ohn P a r ki ns on a nd M a r c us M i dy e ttappe a l the j udgm e nti n f

a vorof T orry S m i th a nd P a tr i c i a G r a y unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 a nd 

# FI LED MA Y18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST hi s i s true of thei r a rgum ent s thatthe i nv es t i gat i on of S m i th w as 1 obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e a s a m a tt e rof l a w ; tha te ntry w a s c ons t i tut i ona l be c a us e the offi ce rs corr ec t l y a sc ert ai ned S m i th’ s s t atus; thatS m i th’ s c ou nsel m ade aj ud i ci al adm i ss i on i n cl osi ng thathe had n o p robl em w i th the offi ce rs go i ng t o the ho use; th at “arb itra ry ” w as m isd ef in ed to re ac h b ey o n d th e o ff icer s’ k n o w led g e o f S m ith ’s s t a tus ; tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc onf l a t e d w he the rthe s e a r c h l a c ke d pr oba bl e c a us e or r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n w ith s u b je c tiv e s ta n d a r d s ; a n d th a t th e y c a n ’t b e liab le to G r a y be c a us e the i re ntry w a s pe r m i s s i bl e . A tthe e nd of the da y , a l l pi voton the s a m e p o in t. Ca l i f o rn i a Ci v i l Co d e § § 5 1 . 7 & 5 2 . 1 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d a f

f i r m.

I T he offi ce rs ’ appeal turns m ai nl y on a po si t i on they di d n ott ake i n d i stri ct courtun t i l m ov i ng for J M O L un der F ed. R . C i v. P . 50 (b) – thatthe di stri ctcourt appl i ed an err on eous “ subj ec t i ve i nt ent ” t es t . H ow ever , as the di stri ctcourtrul ed 1 i n d enyi ng thei r R ul e 50(b) m ot i on , the offi ce rs agre ed t o the st andard abou tw hi ch th e y n o w c o m p la in , a n d tr ie d th e c a s e o n th e b a s is o f th a t s ta n d a r d . T h e y f

a ile d to o b j e c tt o a d m i s s i b i l i ty o f

e v i d e n c e o rt o j u ry i n s tru c t i o n s o n th i s g r o u n d ; th e i ro wn pr opos e d I ns truc t i on N o. 16 i nc orpor a t e d the s t a nda r d, a nd the y pr opos e d no c ount e ri ns truc t i ons a r t i c ul a t i ng a di f f e r e nts t a nda r d; the y ne i the robj e c t e d t o the ve r di c tf or m norr e que s t e d a di f f e r e ntone ; a nd the y di d note s pous e the i rpr e s e nt theory i n m ov i ng for s um m ary a dj ud i ca t i on or for j ud gm entun der R ul e 50(a). In these ci rc um st ance s, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe offi ce rs ar e pre cl ud edfro m m ak i n g th e “ su b j ect i v e i n t en t ” arg u m en t s th ey fi rstrai sed aft er tri al an d p ress o n ap p e a l. Se e , e .g ., F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 1 ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . P ars ons C or p. , 1 F . 3d 94 4, 94 5 (9t h C i r. 19 93 ) ( appl yi ng R ul e 51 t o v er di ctform s) ; W ag ner v . P rof’l E ng ’r s i n C al . G ov’t , 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 4 & n .4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t a p a r ty is ju d ic ia lly e s to p p e d f r o m ta k in g o n e p o s itio n , th e n ta k in g a n in c o m p a tib le p o s itio n ) .

I I T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n al l o w i n g d am ag es fro m S m i th ’ s fal se arrest t o run beyond arra i gn m enton fe l on y c harges . W e do n otneed t o d ec i de w hether the c our tc orr e c t l y rul e d on the que s t i on of i nde pe nde ntpr os e c ut or i a l j udgm e nt , or w hether S m i th n ee ded t o (or di d) pl ea d o r prove m al i ci ou s prose cut i on , or w hether there i s adi ff

er ence thatm att er s betw ee n st at e a nd fe dera l l aw , because S m i th w as i nc a r c e r a t e d on a c c ountof a pa r ol e vi ol a t i on a s w e l l a s on a c c ountof the gun char ges. T he parol e hol d ext ended w el l beyond re sol ut i on of the gu n charges, ye t in v o lv e d n o in d e p e n d e n t p r o c e s s . Cf . W al lace v . Ka to , 549 U . S . 384, 389- 90 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( i n d i c a t i n g th a tf a l s e a rr e s td a ma g e s a r e o r d i n a r i l y l i mi t e d t o th e t i me b e tw e e n d e te n tio n a n d a rr a ig n m e n t b e c a u s e a t th a t p o in t “th e v ic tim b e c o m e s h e ld p u rsu a n t to su ch p ro cess ” ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e r e is n o b a s is f o rlim itin g d a m a g e s to fo u r d ays.II I

W e c a nnots a y the di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de t e r m i ni ng the a m ountof

da m a ge s t o r e m i t . T he r e m a i ni ng a w a r d, w hi l e s ubs t a nt i a l , i s not

“ grossl y e xces si ve or m on strous. ” See H em m i ngs v . T

i dym an ’s Inc. , 285 F . 3d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 9 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i tt e d ) . No rwi l l we co n si d er th e o ffi cers’ su g g est i o n th atth e j u ry w as i n co m p l et el y i n stru ct ed o n fal se i m pr i s onm e nta s no obj e c t i on w a s m a de on thi s ba s i s ; a nd the y r a i s e d no s u f f ic ie n c y is s u e in th e irR u le 5 0 ( a ) m o tio n s o c o n s id e r a tio n o f it, to o , is w a iv e d . L i ke w i s e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n l e tt i ng the puni t i ve dam ages aw ar d st and. T o the ext entthe offi ce rs cont end t hatno aw ar d w as prop er because the se ar ch w as const i tut i on al un der adi ff er entst andard from thatre l i ed upon a ttr i a l , the i s s ue i s w a i ve d f orr e a s ons w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d; a nd t o the e xt e nt they a rgue as t o S m i th thatany a w ar d sho ul d b e l i m i t ed t o the peri od prea rr a ig n m e n t, th e p o in t is n o t p e r s u a s iv e g iv e n th a t p o s t- a rr a ig n m e n t d a m a g e s c o u ld be aw ar ded. T hey f

ai l ed t o p ursue a ttri al , and t hu s t o p re se rve, any def i ci ency a r i s i ng outof

ne tw or th. AF F I R ME D.