Opinion ID: 2754539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gant’s Fourth Amendment Claims

Text: Gant resolved his claims against the Torrance police—the defendants responsible for his arrest—before this case was appealed to our court, but he appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against the L.A. City defendants. The L.A. City defendants obtained the warrant pursuant to which Gant was arrested, and, according to the Third Amended Complaint, only the L.A. City defendants had the ability to update the CWS entry for the warrant. Unlike Rivera, Gant’s particularity argument is not that the warrant lacked a CII number; it included one. Rather, Gant argues that the L.A. City defendants knew he had been mistakenly arrested on six prior occasions because of the similarity between his name and his brother’s name, their similar physical descriptions, and their identical dates of birth. After numerous mistaken arrests, Gant argues the L.A. City defendants were aware the description in the warrant was constitutionally deficient, and that his rights were 14 GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES violated by their failure to enter his prior exonerations into CWS. The L.A. City defendants argue that Gant cites no authority to support his argument that the Fourth Amendment was violated by the failure to enter Gant’s judicial clearance form into CWS. They cite Powe v. City of Chicago, 664 F.2d 639, 646 (7th Cir. 1981), for the proposition that courts have “traditionally found a warrant that truly names the arrestee or describes him sufficiently to identify him” satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. The district court, citing Powe, granted the L.A. City defendants’ motion to dismiss after concluding that the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment because Gant did not allege that the warrant “failed to correctly name the proper subjects of the warrant,” and because the warrant contained a CII number. In Rivera, we held that the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement was satisfied because the warrant “contained both the subject’s name and a detailed physical description,” even though it did not contain a CII number. Rivera, 745 F.3d at 388. This is consistent with our longstanding case law defining the contours of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. See West v. Cabell, 153 U.S. 78, 85 (1894) (“[A] warrant for the arrest of a person charged with [a] crime must truly name him, or describe him sufficiently to identify him.”).7 Here, because 7 Gant argues that two cases, United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1982), and United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1986), are dispositive as to his Fourth Amendment claims. These cases, however, address search warrants, not arrest warrants, and we are aware of no authority incorporating the rules articulated in these cases into our case law regarding the adequacy of arrest warrants. GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 15 the warrant for Kevin Gant contained his correct name, date of birth, a physical description, and a CII number, we would hold that the warrant adequately identified its true subject, were that the issue before us. But Gant does not challenge the constitutionality of the warrant issued by the court for his brother. The issue he raises is whether the failure of a law enforcement agency to update a warrant abstract in its computerized database violates the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement when an individual, like Kelvin Gant, can show that the description has resulted in his mistaken arrest on approximately seven different occasions.8 It is undisputed that Gant had his judicial clearance form with him when he was arrested, and he showed it to the Torrance police officers. The record shows that the Torrance Police were able to access Gant’s CII number via Live Scan shortly after Gant was fingerprinted during the booking process, and Live Scan reported a CII number for Gant that was plainly different from his brother’s.9 As the district court 8 Gant alleges the L.A. City defendants caused the warrant’s issuance. Because the court that issued the warrant is not a defendant, we understand him to rely on Cal. Civ. Code § 43.55(b). That statute provides that: a ‘warrant of arrest regular upon its face’ includes both of the following: (1) A paper arrest warrant that has been issued pursuant to a judicial order. (2) A judicial order that is entered into an automated warrant system by law enforcement or court personnel authorized to make those entries at or near the time the judicial order is made. 9 We cannot determine from the record whether Gant’s CII number appeared on the judicial clearance form he showed to Torrance police, but the record does include a Live Scan report that was received by Torrance 16 GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES noted, these different CII numbers conclusively established that Gant was not the subject of his brother’s warrant. The Torrance police, however, failed to realize this. The outcome of Gant’s Fourth Amendment claim against the L.A. City defendants might be different if the warrant for Kevin Gant did not include a CII number. For warrants that do not contain CII numbers, or in instances where the entry of a CII number has not been sufficient, inputting notice of judicial clearance forms in law enforcement databases may be necessary to prevent repeated mistaken arrests. But in this case, we cannot say that the L.A. City defendants violated Gant’s Fourth Amendment rights; the arresting officers had access to Gant’s brother’s CII number and Gant’s CII number on the evening of his arrest, and the warrant was sufficiently particular to rule out Gant. Gant did not show that the failure to enter his judicial clearance form rendered the warrant abstract insufficiently particular or that the absence of such an entry was the proximate cause of his mistaken arrest. The district court did not err by dismissing Gant’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim against the L.A. City defendants.10
Gant asserts the same Fourth Amendment particularity claim (failure to update CWS to reflect prior exonerations) police on the evening Gant was arrested. It states: “Your subject has been identified by fingerprints as NAM/Gant, Kelvin Thomas DOB/1963[redaction] CII/A06572567.” The warrant for Kevin Gant listed his CII number as A06776321. 10 Gant does not argue on appeal that the L.A. City defendants’ failure to update CWS to reflect his prior exonerations violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 17 against the L.A. County defendants. This claim was properly dismissed. The Third Amended Complaint alleged that only the agency that procures a warrant can update the computerized entry of it. It also alleged that the L.A. City defendants, not the L.A. County defendants, obtained the warrant for Gant’s brother. The district court’s order dismissing Gant’s Fourth Amendment claim against the L.A. County defendants is affirmed.11