## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
J ERA M Y M AR TI NEZ, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. T H E O D O R E C A R R , a p u b lic empl oy ee w i t h t he N ew M exi co D e p a r t m e n to f

P u b l i c S a fe t y, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2069

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D . C . N o. C I V - 04 - 01 04 7 M V / R H S) Je rryA . W a lz, W a lz a n d A ss o c iate s, C e d a r C re st, N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n tA p p e llan t. M a r c e l K r z ys t e k , K i l l m e r& L a n e , D e n v e rC o l o r a d o , ( J o s e p h P . K e n n e d y, K ennedy& O l i ver , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, on t he br i ef) forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e BRI S CO E, EBEL, and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.

J er amy M ar t i nez s eeks damages fr om N ew M exi co St at e Pol i ce O ffi cer T h eo d o re C arr p u rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , all eg ing that O fficer C arr- 2-

u n r e a s o n a b l ys e i z e d h i m i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h Ame n d me n tb yi s s u i n g h i m a crim inal cit ati o n an d threa tenin g jai l i f h e d ec li n ed to sign the c it ati o n . B efo re t he di s t r i ctcour t , O ffi cerC arrcl ai m ed qual i fi ed i m m uni t yand moved for s um m aryj udgm ent . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed s um m aryj udgm ent , and O ffi cer C arrnow appea l s t o us . W e conc l ude thatt he ac t i ons of O ffi cerC arrdi d not con st i tute a s ei zure for purpo ses of t he F ou rth A m end m ent and, t herefore, rever se t he di s t r i ctcour tand r emand w i t h di r ect i ons t o ent erj udgm enti n favorof O ffi cer C a rr . I V iew in g th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to M r. M a rtin e z , as w e m u st, t heyr evea l t haton Sept ember 15, 2001, M r . M ar t i nez a t t ended the N ew M exi co S t a t e F a i rw i t h f

r i e n d s a n d fa m i l y. W hi l e ther e, M r . M ar t i nez s aw var i ous pol i ce offi cer s , noti ncl udi ng O ffi cerC arr , w al ki ng i n hi s di r ect i on and not i ced one of t he off i cer s l ooki ng athi m . M r . M ar t i nez a s ked an offi ceri f ther e w as a pr obl em and a ve rbal excha nge ens ued. U l t i m at el y , thi s excha nge r es ul t ed i n t he off i cer th re a ten in g to b a n M r. M a rtin e z f ro m th e fa ir a s w e ll as a p h y sic a l alte rc a tio n in w hi ch l aw enfor cementoffi cer s “gr abbed” and det ai ned M r . M ar t i nez fors ever al m inu tes. A t som e p o int du ri n g this en co u n ter, O fficer C arr, o n p atrol elsew h ere at t h e fair, rec eive d a ra d io m essa g e c all ing h im to the sce n e. W h en O fficer C arr arr i ved, he not i ced s ever al fel l ow offi cer s s ur r oundi ng M r . M ar t i nez, i ncl udi ng o n e w h o h a d M r. M a rt in e z ’s a rm s e c u re d in a w ri s t lo c k b e h in d h is b a c k .- 3-

Shor t l yaft erhi s arr i val on t he s cene , O ffi cerC arrfol l ow ed M r . M ar t i nez and the otheroffi cer s t o “St at i on A , ” the ce nt r al headqua r t er s forl aw enfor cement at t he fai r gr ound. Pr i ort o and dur i ng t hi s t r i p, O ffi cerC arrcont ends t hathe neverhad anyphy s i cal cont actw i t h M r . M ar t i nez ( s om ethi ng M r . M ar t i nez doe s notdi s put e) . W hen the gr oup arr i ved att he pol i ce s t at i on, M r . M ar t i nez w as ask ed to tak e a sea t, w h ich h e d id. A fter a few m inu tes, O fficer C arr issue d M r. M ar t i nez a cr i m i nal m i s demeanorci t at i on for“r es i s t i ng, evadi ng orobs t ruct i ng an o ffice r,” in v io latio n o f N .M . S tat. A n n . § 3 0 -2 2 -1 . T h e fa c tu a l b a sis re c ited in t h e c i t a t i o n a l l e g e d : “ Su bj e c tt o l d u s wha tt h e f* * * a r e t h e p o l i c e d o i n g h e r e ? Subj ectas ked t o l eave – r efus ed and e s cor t ed off t he pr emi s es . ” I n i s s ui ng t he ci t at i on, O ffi cerC arrt ol d M r . M ar t i nez “ he had tw o choi ces : s i gn t he ci t at i on or g o to jail.” A n d , ind e e d , N .M . S tat. A n n . § 3 1 -1 -6 p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt:

A . A law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice r w h o a rre sts a p e rso n w ith o u t a w arr antfora pett ym i s demeanor. . . m ayoffe rt he per s on arr es t ed the opt i on of ac cept i ng a ci t at i on t o appea ri n l i eu of ta k in g h im to ja il. B . . . . T he l aw enfor cementoffi cers hal l expl ai n t he per s on’ s r i ght s nott o s i gn a ci t at i on, t he effec tof nots i gni ng t he ci t at i on, t he effec tof s i gni ng t he ci t at i on and the effec tof fai l i ng t o appea ratt he t i m e and pl ace s t at ed on the ci t at i on.

*** C . T he p ers on ’s si gn ature on the ci t at i on con st i tutes a p ro m is e to a p p e a r a t th e tim e a n d p la c e s ta te d in th e c ita tio n .- 4-

A l t hough M r . M ar t i nez di s put ed the fa ctual al l egat i ons r eci t ed i n t he ci t at i on, he s i gned the documentand w as es cor t ed off the fa i r gr ound byoffi cer s ot hert han O ffic e r C a rr . O n A u g u st 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. M a rtin e z filed a c o m p lain t ag a in st O ffice r C a rr in N e w M e x ico sta te c o u rt a ss e rtin g w ro n g f u l ar re st a n d fa lse im p riso n m e n t, m al i ci ou s use of p rocess , and t he v i olat i on of h i s Fo urth A m end m ent r i gh tagainst bei ng s ei zed unr eas onabl y . T he ca s e w as l at err emoved t o t he U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e D istri ct of N ew M ex ico w h ere the fir st tw o co u n ts w ere d i s mi s s e d b ya s t i p u l a t e d o r d e r , l e a v i n g o n l yt h e F o u r t h Am e n d me n tc l a i m. On June 2 7, 20 05 , O ffi cer C arrm ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent on several groun ds, i ncl udi ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed thi s r el i ef, concl udi ng as a mat t erof l aw t hat , on t he fa ct s al l eged, O ffi cerC arrs ei zed M r . M ar t i nez w hen he hande d M r . M ar t i nez the ci t at i on and t ol d hi m he had the choi ce t o s i gn t he ci t at i on orgo t o j ai l . T he di s t r i ctcour tfur t herfound thi s s ei zur e t o be unl aw ful a n d ru led th a t O ffice r C a rr w a s n o t en tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityf ro m su it beca us e hi s conductvi ol at ed a “ cl ear l yes t abl i s hed” c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtunder e x is tin g la w . It is th is d e te rm in a tio n th a t O ffic e r C a rr a p p e a ls to u s .- 5- II A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a de fenda nt ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on bas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s an i m m edi at el yappea l abl e col l at er al or derw hen, as her e, t he mat t erati s s ue conc erns w hethert he al l eged fact s demonst r at e a v io la tio n o f

c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w . G ro ss v . P irtle , 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 6 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Mitch e ll v. Fo rsy th , 472 U . S. 511, 527- 28 ( 1985) ) . W e r evi ew de novo deni al s of s um m aryj udgm enti nvol vi ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybut , w hen a defe ndantr ai s es qual i fi ed i m m uni t yas a defens e, t he pl ai nt i ff mustm eeta “he avy t w o- par tbur den. ” A l br ightv. R odr iguez , 5 1 F . 3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 3 4 -35 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). F irst, th e p lain tiff

m u st d e m o n stra te th a t th e d e fe n d a n t v io late d o n e o f h is orhercons t i tut i onal ors t atut or yr i ght s . Second, t he pl ai nt i ff musts how t hatt he in f rin g e d rig h t at iss u e w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d a t th e tim e o f th e a lleg e d ly unl aw ful act i vi t ys uch thata r eas onabl e l aw enfor cementoffi cerw oul d have k n o w n th a t h is o r h e r c h a lle n g e d c o n d u c t w a s ille g a l. S e e Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . I n or derfort he l aw t o be cons i der ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed at t he s econd s t ep of the Sauci eranal y s i s , w e have expl ai ned that“‘ t her e mustbe a Supr eme C our torT enth C i r cui tdeci s i on on poi nt , ort he cl ear l yes t abl i s hed w ei ghtof author i t yfr om ot hercour t s m us thave found t he l aw t o be as t he pl ai nt i ff mai nt ai ns . ’ ” A l br ight , 51 F. 3d at1535 ( quot i ng Medi na v. C i t y and C ount y of D enve r , 9 6 0 F . 2 d 1 4 9 3 , 1 4 9 8 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . “ I n s h o r t , a l t h o u g h we w i l l r evi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y , t he- 6-

rec o rd m u st cl ea rl yd em o n str ate the p lai n ti ff h as sa ti sfied h is he av ytw o -pa rt bur den; ot herw i s e, t he defendant s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . ” G ross , 245 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 6 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). I n t hi s cas e, w e ar e abl e t o r es ol ve M r . M ar t i nez’ s cl ai m att he fi r s ts t ep of Sauci erand thus need notr eac h t he s econd. I ti s undi s put ed thatl aw enfor cement o ffice rs s e ize d M r. M a rtin e z , b u t itis a lso u n d isp u ted th a t O ffice r C a rr h im se lf effectuat ed nei t herM r . M ar t i nez’ s i ni t i al det ent i on and the s ubs equentw r i s tl ock, norM r . M ar t i nez’ s eventual t r i p t o t he pol i ce pos t . I ndeed, i tappea r s t o us fr om the re co rd o f th is case that M r. M arti n ez m ayh av e inten d ed to su e the o fficers resp o n sible fo r t h ese ac ti v it ies an d m ist ak en lyb eli ev ed O fficer C arr’s p a rt ic ip a tio n to h a v e b e e n m o re s u b s ta n tia l th a n it w a s . See A pp. at77 ( D i s t r i ct C o u rt O rde r at 4 ). A s ith ap p en s, h o w ev er, w e h av e b efo re u s o n lyO fficer C arr, and i ti s el ement al t o ours y s t em of l aw t hatw e gene r al l yavoi d deci di ng t he p o ten tial liab ili tyo f

th o se w h o a re n o t p a rties b e fo re u s w ith a n o p p o rtu n ityto a p p e a r a n d b e h e a rd . See, e. g. , In re S p ec ial G ra n dJu ry 8 9 -2 , 450 F. 3d 1159, 1170 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( “‘ [W ] hatm akes [for ] a pr operj udi ci al r es ol ut i on of a

‘ c a s e o rc o n t r o v e r s y ’ r a t h e rt h a n a n a d v i s o r yo p i n i o n [ ] i s i n t h e s e t t l i n g o f s o me d ispu te w h ich a ffec ts th e b eh av ior o f th e d efen d an t t o w ard s the p lai n ti ff. ’” ( quot i ng He wi t tv . He lms , 4 8 2 U . S . 7 5 5 , 7 6 1 (19 8 7 )). W e a re the refo re cons t r ai ned t o as s es s t he s tr engths and w eakne s s es of M r . M ar t i nez’ s unl aw ful s e iz u re c la im b a s e d o n O ffic e r C a rr ’s a c tio n s a lo n e .- 7-

B utw hatexac t l yar e thos e ac t i ons ? T he part i es agr ee thati tw as not O ffi cerC arrw ho confr ont ed M r . M ar t i nez, s t opped hi m , s ei zed hi s ar m , “l ocked” hi s w r i s tbehi nd hi s back, and for ced hi m t o t he pol i ce s t at i on. D ur i ng or al ar gum ent , M r . M ar t i nez c l ar i fi ed hi s vi ew t hatO ffi cerC arrr emai ns r es pons i bl e, and l egal l yl i abl e, fori s s ui ng a ci t at i on M r . M ar t i nez ha d t o s i gn ( and ther eby pr om i s e t o appea rfort r i al ata l at erdat e) on t hr eatof arr es ti f he de cl i ned t o do s o. T hus , t hi s cas e pr es ent s t he pur e l egal ques t i on w hethert he i s s uance of a m i sdem eano r ci t at i on requi ri ng app earance att ri al i n li eu o f arr estcon st i tutes a “sei zure” for Fo urt h A m end m ent purposes. I n a p p r o a c h i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , a n d a tt h e r i s k o f s t a t i n g t h e o b v i o u s , i ts e e ms of i m m edi at e s i gni fi canc e t o us t hatO ffi cerC arrgave M r . M ar t i nez the choi ce of acc ept i ng t he ci t at i on orbei ng arr es t ed – s om ethi ng verynear l yt he oppos i t e of a seizure , w h ich is c o m m o n lyu n d e rsto o d a s c irc u m sta n c e s w h e n “ ‘a re a so n a b le per s on w oul d have be l i eved thathe w as notfr ee t o l eave . ’ ” Jones v. Hunt , 410 F. 3d 1221, 1225- 26 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Mi chigan v. C hes t er nut , 48 6 U. S. 5 6 7 , 5 7 3 (19 8 8 )). In fac t, itsee m s tha t th e issu an ce o f th e c it ati o n resu lt ed in M r. M ar t i nez be i ng r el eas edfr om t he det ent i on t o w hi ch he pr evi ous l yhad bee n s ubj ect ed. A ft eral l , t he ups hotof t he off i cer ’ s act i ons w as t hatt he defendantw as gi ven the fr eedom t o choos e nott o be ar r es t ed and i ns t ead l eave w i t houtanyM r . M ar t i nez’ s depos i t i on t es t i m onyi l l us t r at es t hi s verypoi nt– t her e, 1 M r . M ar t i nez i ndi cat ed thathe dec i ded t o s i gn t he ci t at i on notbeca us e of a ny pol i ce pr es s ur e butbeca us e he w as acc om pany i ng hi s gi r l fr i end’ s s on, w ho w as on hi s fi r s tt r i p al one w i t h M r . M ar t i nez, and s o he w ant ed t o “gett hats i tuat i on o v e r w ith a s s o o n a s p o s s ib le .” A p p . a t 2 0 (D e p . o f M a rt in e z a t 1 3 ). C ompar e I ow a C ode A nn. § 805. 1( 1) ( “[A ] a pea ce offi cerhavi ng 2 gr ounds t o m ake a n arr es tm ayi s s ue a c i t at i on i n l i eu of maki ng an arr es tw i t hout a w a rra n t o r, if a w a rra n tles s a rre st h a s b e e n m a d e , a c itatio n m a yb e iss u e d in lie u o f c o n tin u e d c u s to d y .” ), and§ 805. 3 ( “B efor e the ci t ed per s on i s r el eas ed, t he p ers on shal l si gn t he cit at i on , . . . [w hich] si gn ature shal l al so ser ve as a w ri tte n p ro m is e to a p p e a r i n c o u rt a t th e tim e a n d p la c e s p e c ifie d .” ), w i th N . M. (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 8- r es t r i ct i ons on hi s m ovement pr i or t o t r i al . T o be s ur e, t he ci t at i on i ndi cat ed that 1 M r . M ar t i nez w as s ubj ectt o arr es ti f he fai l ed t o appea ri n cour tatt he pr es cr i bed tim e a n d d a te, a n d su c h a n a rre st m ig h t w e ll co n stitu te a n e w a n d q u a lit a tiv e ly d iffe re n t s e iz u re , s ee, e. g. , D e P ier o v . C ity o f Ma c e d o n ia , 1 8 0 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 8 9 (6 th C i r . 1999) , butt hati s notourcas e and a ques t i on w e nee d notfac e, as not hi ng of th e s o rt to o k p la c e h e re . T o us , M r . M ar t i nez’ s cas e appe ar s s om ethi ng appr oachi ng t he i nver s e of Kn o wl e s v . Io wa , 5 2 5 U .S . 1 1 3 (1 9 9 8 ). T h e re , a p o lice o ffice r sto p p e d a m o to rist, i s s ued a tr aff

i c ci t at i on, and then conduc t ed a f ul l s ear ch of the ca rdur i ng w hi ch he found a bag of mar ij uana. T he defendantar gued thatt he s ear ch w as unl aw ful w hi l e the s t at e cont ended thatt he s ear ch w as s om ethi ng aki n t o a s ear ch i nci dent t o an arr es tgi ven the off i cer ’ s i s s uance of a tr aff i c ci t at i on pur s uantt o w hi ch, as h e re , the re c ip ien t p ro m ise d b yh is s ig n a tu re to a p p e a r in c o u rt a t a la ter d a te in r etur n forfor egoi ng an i m m edi at e tr i p t o j ai l . T he Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed the 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 St at . A nn. §§ 31- 1- 6( A ) , ( C ) ( “A l aw enfor cementoffi cerw ho arr es t s a per s on w i t houta w arr antfora pett ym i s demeanor. . . m ayoffe rt he per s on arr es t ed the opt i on of ac cept i ng a ci t at i on t o appea ri n l i eu of t aki ng hi m t o j ai l . . . . T he per s on’ s s i gnatur e on the ci t at i on cons t i tut es a pr om i s e t o appea ratt he t i m e and p la c e s ta te d in th e c ita tio n .” ). T he s peci fi c ques t i on Know l es d e c id e d , w h e th e r a n d w h a t au th o rity 3 offi cer s s houl d have t o conducta “s ear ch- i nci dent - t o- t r aff i c- ci t at i on, ” r emai ns t he s u bje c t o f

s o m e in te re s t a n d d is c u s s io n . See 3 W ayne R . L aFave, Sear ch & Seiz ur e § 5 .2 (h ), a t 1 2 5 , ets eq. (4th ed . 2 0 0 4 ) (he reina fter “L aF av e” ).

- 9- s t at e’ s ar gum entt hatt he i s s uance of a c i t at i on t r ans for m ed a r out i ne tr aff i c s t op i nt o s om ethi ng of a s i gni fi cant l ygr averm agni tude and he l d t hat , even a ft ert he i s s uance of a c i t at i on, “[a ] r out i ne tr aff i c s t op . . . i s m or e ana l ogous t o a s ocal l ed ‘ Terry s t op’ . . . t han t o a form al arr es t . ” Id. at117 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itte d ). See als o Il l i nois v. C abal l es , 543 U . S. 405, 414 ( 2005) ( “Ther e i s no o c c a sio n to c o n sid e r a u th o rityin c id e n t to a rre st, h o w e v e r, fo r th e p o lice d id not hi ng m or e than det ai n C abal l es l ong enough t o chec k hi s r ecor d and w r i t e a ti ck et. ” (intern al cit ati o n o m itted)). B yp ara ll el reaso n ing , the fac t th at M r. M a rtin e z c o u ld h a v e b e e n a rre ste d d o e s n o t co n v e rt th e iss u a n c e o f a c itatio n in to a n a rre st a n d n e ith e r d o e s th e fa c t th a t h e h a d to sig n th e c itatio n in o rd e r to a v o id arr es t . A s i n Know l es , O ffi cerC arrdi d notqual i t at i vel yal t ert he natur e of M r . M ar t i nez’ s pr eexi s t i ng det ent i on s i m pl ybyi s s ui ng a ci t at i on, even unde r t hr eatof j ai l i f t he ci t at i on w as notacc ept ed. 3 T h e re su lt M r. M a rtin e z se e k s m ig h t als o c re a te a p e rv e rse , alb e it uni nt ended, s i de- effect . T he s t atut e underw hi ch O ffi cerC arrpr ocee ded affor dedIn a sim ilar v e in , P ro fe ss o r L a F a v e h a s a rg u e d th a t A tw ater m ay 4 i ncent i vi ze a r r es t s gi ven the “odd[ i t y ] ” that“the s ear ch conduc t ed i n Know l es becomes per m i s s i bl e” i f t he off i cerm er el yus es hi s orherdi s cr et i on t o optforan a rr e s t r a th e r i s s u in g a c ita tio n a n d th e n p e rfo rm s a s e a rc h in c id e n t to a rr e s t. See L a F a v e § 5 .1 (i ) a t 9 1 , ets eq. See , e. g. , A B A C r i m i nal J us t i ce Sec t i on St andar ds §§ 10- 1. 3, 10- 2. 1; 5 L aFave § 5. 1( i ) at76 ( di s cus s i ng effor t s t o encour age the ci t at i on/ s um m ons al t ernat i ve t o arr es tform i norcr i m es ) . T he pr act i ce of empl oy i ng ci t at i ons i n l i eu of arr es ti s a r el at i vel yr ece nti nnovat i on ai m ed atamel i or at i ng t he comm on l aw t r adi t i on i n w hi ch the abi l i t yt o obt ai n pr etr i al r el eas e af t erarr es tw as farfr om c e rt a in . See T h o m a s K . C la n c y , WhatC ons t i t ut es A n “A r r es t ” Wi thi n the Me a n in go

f th e Fo u rth A m e n dm e n t? , 4 8 Vi l l . L. Re v . 1 2 9 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; Do n a l d B. V err i l l i , J r . , N ot e, The E ighth A m endm entand the Rightt o B ai l : His t or i cal P ers pect i ves , 8 2 C o lum . L . R ev . 3 2 8 (19 8 2 ).

- 10- h im th e c h o ic e to e ffe c t a n im m e d ia te a rr e s t o r i s s u e a c ita tio n . See N .M . S tat. A n n . § 3 1 -1 -6 (A ) (“ A law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice r w h o a rre sts a p e rso n w ith o u t a w arr antfora pett ym i s demeanor. . . m ayoffe rt he per s on arr es t ed the opt i on of ac ce p ti n g a cit ati o n to ap p ea r in li eu o f takin g h im to jai l. ”). T h e S u p rem e C o u rt h as in stru cted that, u n d er su ch statu toryrub ri cs, l aw en fo rce m en t office rs are e n title d to s u b s ta n tia l d is c re tio n in c h o o s in g w h ic h a lte rn a tiv e to p u rs u e . See g e n e ra lly A tw a terv . C ity o f L a g o Vista , 5 3 2 U .S . 3 1 8 (2 0 0 1 ). H o ld in g th a t b o th al t ernat i ves con st i tute “s ei zures” for Fo urth A m end m ent purposes ( and are, t hu s, su bjec t to a ll th e re v iew a n d re stric tio n s th a t flo w f ro m su c h a c o n c lu sio n ) w o u ld su re lyd isin c e n tiv ize th e u se o f c itatio n s, a t lea st to a c e rta in d e g re e , a re su lt 4 i ncons i s t entw i t h t he des i r e t o m i t i gat e i nt rus i venes s on pr i vat e ci t i zens and r ece nteffor t s t o encour age the us e of c i t at i on i n l i eu of a r r es tpr ocedur e. 5- 11-

In d e e d , if th e iss u a n c e o f a c itatio n to M r. M a rtin e z d id so m e h o w c o n stitu te a new or quali t at i velydiffer ent s ei zure, i tw ou l d fo l l ow t hat traffi c ci t at i on s, w h ich f u n c tio n in m a n ysta tes in e x a c tlyth e sa m e w a ya s th e c itatio n iss u e d to M r . M ar t i nez, w oul d al s o t r i ggerFour t h A m endment s ei zur e ana l y s i s . So m i ght t es t i m oni al s ubpoenas t hatcompel at t endanc e att r i al ordepos i t i on on penal t yof p o te n tia l ja il tim e . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 45; Fed. R . C r i m . P. 17. T he pr act i ce of p e rso n a l re c o g n iza n c e b o n d s, a llo w in g in d iv id u a ls th e c h o ice to lea v e jail in r etur n fora pr om i s e t o appea ri n cour tata fi xed t i m e and da t e w i t houtanyfur t her r es t r i ct i ons on t hei rl i ber t y , w oul d al s o s eem t o be s ubj ectt o Four t h A m endment s crut i ny . W e mi ghteven be for ced t o as k w hethert he pr act i ce of compel l i ng ci t i zens t o appea rforj ur ydut ym i ghtcons t i tut e a “ s ei zur e. ” W e fi nd i tnot ew or t hyt hateverycour tof appe al s t o addr es s t hes e r el at ed q u e s tio n s h a s reje c te d F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c la im s lik e M r. M a rt in e z ’s . In D eP i ero , 180 F. 3d at789, t he Si xt h C i r cui tconcl uded thatt he i s s uance of a t r aff i c t i cketr equi r i ng t he defendant ’ s appea r ance att r i al does notcons t i tut e a

“ se izu re ,” a t lea st u n til su c h tim e a s th e re c ip ien t o f th e tick e t fa ils to a p p e a r in c o u rt a n d a b e n c h w a rra n t is iss u e d fo r h is o r h e r a rre st. T h e T h ird C irc u it, in D iB el l a v. B or ough of B eachwood , 4 0 7 F .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), sim ilarly hel d t hat , w i t h r es pectt o a courtor derr equi r i ng pl ai nt i ffs t o appea ratpr etr i al pr ocee di ngs and tr i al , “ther e coul d be no s ei zur e s i gni fi cantenough t o cons t i tut e a Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on” bec aus e the pl ai nt i ffs “w er e onl yi s s ued a- 12-

su m m o n s; th e yw e re n e v e r a rre ste d ; th e yn e v e r p o ste d b a il; th e yw e re f re e to t r avel ; and theydi d nothave t o r epor tt o Pr etr i al Ser vi ces . T hei rl i ber t yw as r es t r i ct ed onl ydur i ng t he M uni ci pal C our tt r i al s and the Four t h A m endment does n o t e x te n d b e y o n d th e p e ri o d o f p re tr ia l r e s tr ic tio n s .” L i kew i s e, t he pl ai nt i ff i n Kar am v. C i t y of B ur bank , 352 F. 3d 1188, 1194 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) , w as char ged w i t h a mi s demeanorand, i n l i eu of j ai l , w as al l ow ed t o s i gn a per s onal r ecogni zanc e agr eementpur s uantt o w hi ch s he agr eed t o appea r i n cour tatt he t i m es and pl ace s or der ed byt he courtand nott o l eave t he s t at e of C al i for ni a w i t houtfi r s tobt ai ni ng cour tper m i s s i on; the N i nt h C i r cui thel d t hat thes e re q u ir em en ts w ere “n o m o re b u rde n so m e tha n the p rom ise t o ap p ea r a m o to rist m a k e s w h e n iss u e d a tra ffic c itatio n ” a n d d id n o t co n stitu te a F o u rth A m endment s ei zur e. A l ong t he s ame l i nes , t he Fi r s tC i r cui ti n B r i t t on v. Mal oney , 1 9 6 F .3 d 2 4 , 2 9 -3 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), re a so n e d th a t “ Ter r y cannotbe r ead t o m ean thatt he i s s uance of a s um m ons ( anym or e than a t es t i m oni al s ubpoena or a ca l l t o j ur ydut y ) w oul d cons t i tut e a s ei zur e s i m pl ybeca us e i tt hr eat ens a ci t i zen w i t h t he pos s i bi l i t

y of conf

i nement i f he fai l s t o appea ri n cour t . ” See a lso Techni calO r dnance, Inc. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 244 F. 3d 641, 651 ( 8t h C i r . 2001) (“Th i s ci rcui thas nev er hel d thatpret ri al res t ri ct i on s such as [being fo rced t o p ost bond, appea rbefor e court , and ans w erchar ges ] cons t i tut e a Four t h A m endment se izu re .”); L a F a v e § 5 .1 (i) a t 7 7 (th e “ [ r]e so rt to th e c itatio n a ltern a tiv e is n o t inR el y i ng on t he Fi r s tC i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n B r i t t on , w e h a v e p re v io u sly , in 6 an unpubl i s hed dec i s i on, addr es s ed the ques t i on w hethert he i s s uance of a s um m ons , t he func t i onal equi val entof O ffi cerC arr ’ s ci t at i on i n t hi s cas e, con st i tutes a F ou rth A m end m ent s ei zure; w e con cl ud ed thati tdid not: “B ecause [ p lain tiffs] h a v e n o t sh o w n th e ysu sta in e d a n yo th e r d e p riv a tio n s o f lib e rtyin connec t i on w i t h t hei rr ece i ptof t he s um m ons es , t heyhave fai l ed t o s how t hey w er e s ei zed i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h A m endment . ” Lew is v. R ock , 48 Fed. A p p x . 2 9 1 , 2 9 4 (1 0 th C ir . O c t. 3 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( u n p u b .).

- 13- and of i t s el f an a r r es tor , fort hatm at t er , anyvar i etyof Four t h A m endment seizu re.”). 6 B ycontr as t , t he author i t yt o w hi ch w e have been di r ect ed on the others i de of t he l edgerdoes nots quar el yaddr es s t he ques t i on w e fa ce he r e, buti ns t ead i nvol ves governm ent al conducti m pos i ng qual i t at i vel ym or e s i gni fi cant depr i vat i ons of l i ber t yt han the i s s uance of a mi s demeanorci t at i on. M r . M ar t i nez poi nt s us t o G a llo v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 161 F. 3d 217 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . B utt he T hi r d C i r cui ti t s el f l at erdi s t i ngui s hed G a llo i n D iB e lla , di s cus s ed above , on t he v e ryg ro u n d th a t G a llo i nvol ved an a r r es tand r el eas e condi t i oned on s i gni fi cant pr etr i al r es t r i ct i ons w hi l e D iB e lla i nvol ved onl y( m uch as her e) an or derr equi r i ng a tte n d a n c e a t f

u tu re c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . S e e D iB e lla , 407 F. 3d at603 ( “I f G a llo w as a ‘ cl os e ques t i on; ’ her e [w her e pl ai nt i ffs w er e onl yi s s ued a s um m ons compel l i ng at t endanc e atcour tpr ocee di ngs ] t her e coul d be no s ei zur e s i gni fi cant eno ug h to const i tute a Fou rth A m end m ent vi olat i on . . . . ”). M r. M art i nez als o stres ses Ro h man v . Ne w YorkCi t y Tr a n s i tAu th o r i t

y ( NYC TA) , 215 F. 3d 208 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), b u t th a t ca se , too , inv o lv e d a n in d iv id u a l w h o w a s a rre ste d a n d h e ldT h e S ec o n d C ir cu ith as e m p h asize d that the q u esti o n w h ethe r a m ere 7 p r e - a r r a i g n m e n ts u m m o n s , w i t h o u ta c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s d e p r i v a t i o n o f l i b e r t y, c o n stitu tes a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t se izu re is n o t co n tro lled b yits p rio r p re c e d e n ts l i ke Mur phy . D orm an v. C ast ro , 3 4 7 F .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 1 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

- 14- overni ghtbefor e bei ng r el eas ed. Fi nal l y , M r . M ar t i nez c i t es t o Mur phy v. Lynn , 118 F. 3d 938, 946 ( 2d C i r . 1997) , a ca s e i n w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff w as i ncar cer at ed overni ghtand deni ed the r i ghtt o t r avel out s i de the s t at e w i t houtpr i orper m i s s i on f ro m th e c o u rt. See als o E v a n s v . B a ll , 168 F. 3d 856, 860- 61 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) ( t he 7 pl ai nt i ff w as fi ngerpr i nt ed and phot ogr aphed a nd l i kew i s e forbi dden fr om l eavi ng th e s ta te w ith o u t le a v e o f c o u rt ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by C as t el l ano v. Frago zo , 352 F. 3d 939 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) . Such ci r cumst ance s agai n pr es ent si gn i fi cant addit i on al res t ri ct i on s on a d efen dan t ’s l i bert yno tpresenti n o ur case and w e thus s ee no ne ces s aryi ncons i s t encybetw een, on t he one ha nd, ourhol di ng ( and thos e of s o m anyof ours i s t erci r cui t s ) t hatt he mer e i s s uance of a c i t at i on r equi r i ng pr es ence atfutur e l egal pr ocee di ngs does notqual i fyas a cons t i tut i onal “s ei zur e” a nd, on t he otherhand, t he r es ul t s and r eas oni ng i n t he ca s es ci t ed t o us b yM r. M a rt in e z . * * * W e conc l ude thatt he i s s uance of a c i t at i on, even unde rt hr eatof j ai l i f not a c c e p t e d , d o e s n o tr i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a F o u r t h A m e n d m e n ts e i z u r e ; a c c o r d i n g l y, t he j udgm entof t he di s t r i ctcour tm us tbe r ever s ed and j udgm enti n favorof O ffic e r C a rr is re q u ir e d . So or der ed.