Opinion ID: 618647
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intentional or Reckless

Text: We next consider whether the Bravos have made a substantial showing that Tanore deliberately or recklessly omitted Javier Jr.'s custody status. Viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the Bravos, as we must, we conclude that the district court erred in finding Tanore negligent at most. To survive summary judgment, the Bravos need only make a substantial showing of a deliberate or reckless omission, not provide clear proof. Liston, 120 F.3d at 974 (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is improper where there is a genuine dispute as to the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge or what the officer and claimant did or failed to do. Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 763 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Butler, 281 F.3d at 1024 ([S]tate of mind is for the jury. (citing Hervey, 65 F.3d at 789)). The Bravos have made the required substantial showing that Tanore may have intentionally or recklessly omitted Javier Jr.'s two-year sentence from his affidavit. Tanore stated in his deposition testimony that he reviewed Javier Jr.'s rap sheet in preparing the affidavit, and though he could not recall with certainty whether he had observed Javier Jr.'s two-year sentence, imposed on September 9, 2005, he acknowledged that he may have. The two-year sentence appears on the rap sheet a mere two lines below the convicted disposition for the predicate offense of receiving stolen property in violation of California Penal Code § 496(A)a fact Tanore thought important enough to include in his affidavit. For summary judgment review purposes, the Bravos are entitled to the reasonable inference that Tanore in fact observed the two-year sentence on the rap sheet and either deliberately or recklessly failed to disclose it in his affidavit. Tanore's testimony that, even if he had observed the state prison sentence on Javier Jr.'s rap sheet, it ordinarily wouldn't be something [he] would check into, underscores his apparent disregard for the importance of full disclosure of information to the issuing magistrate. Finally, although he claims that, in this instance, he actually did look into the warrant targets' custody status by having Detective Lara call the SBSO substation and ask the custody officer to run the names of the targets, the Bravos submitted evidence contradicting such claims: no custody officer who was working during the relevant time period recalls receiving a call from Lara. And SBSO custody officers declared that, even if they had received such a request, their standard database search would reveal only whether the subject was currently in county jail, not whether that person had been transferred to state prison. Based on this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that Tanore intentionally or recklessly omitted the two-year-sentence information from the affidavit, and the Bravos presented ample evidence to support that inference. In opposing summary judgment, the Bravos submitted deposition testimony by Lieutenant Ralston, who stated that a reasonably competent police officer, had he seen [the two-year sentence on Javier Jr.'s rap sheet], would have done additional follow-up. Ralston further testified that he told Tanore and Lara he was disappointed that they didn't pay attention to [the two-year sentence] or didn't see it because he thought it was pertinent to the investigation, was something that should have been observed, and was important to know. . . . Important enough to tell the judge when you were seeking the warrant. Similarly, the SBSO Sheriff's Commander testified that if the reason for the gang association warrant was because [Javier Jr.] was associated with that residence and I knew that he was not, in fact, there, that he was in prison, I'd ask a lot more questions about the warrant and the people who lived there and do some more background checks and find out why, in fact, that residence had been identified as a possible search warrant. All this and other evidence in the record suggests that Tanore's omission of this material fact was more than mere negligence. Given the importance of the custody status to the finding of probable cause for the search and to the justification for nighttime service, a reasonable jury could conclude that Tanore's failure to mention Javier Jr.'s two-year sentence or to follow up and inquire about Javier Jr.'s custody status amounted to at least reckless disregard for the truth. Summary judgment was therefore improperly granted.