Opinion ID: 2673871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: De facto arrest without probable cause

Text: Even if reasonable suspicion was satisfied, the parties additionally disagree on whether the stop amounted to a valid investigatory detention under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), or rose to the level of an arrest, as Green contends. There is no bright-line rule to establish whether an investigatory stop has risen to the level of an arrest. Instead, this difference is ascertained in light of the “‘totality of the circumstances.’” Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Del Vizo, 918 F.2d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 1990)). This is a highly fact-specific inquiry that considers the intrusiveness of the methods used GREEN V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 in light of whether these methods were “reasonable given the specific circumstances.” Id. In this case, the methods used were highly intrusive. Green was held at multiple gunpoints, handcuffed, and directed to her knees. In Washington, we considered tactics that were markedly similar, and we found that “‘handcuffing substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of an otherwise routine investigatory detention and is not part of a typical Terry stop.’” Id. at 1188 (quoting United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th Cir. 1982)). We also noted that when police draw their guns, it “greatly increases the seriousness of the stop,” and that physical restraints are an important factor in measuring the degree of intrusion. Id. We went on to conclude that “under ordinary circumstances, when the police have only reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, drawing weapons and using handcuffs and other restraints will violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 1187; see also Del Vizo, 918 F.2d at 825. The question of whether this incident amounted to an unlawful arrest thus turns on whether it is sufficiently distinguishable from the “ordinary circumstances” to justify such tactics. In making such a determination, we have examined the reasonableness of the conduct in light of certain factors. Again, while there are no bright-line rules, “we have only allowed the use of especially intrusive means of effecting a stop in special circumstances, such as 1) where the suspect is uncooperative or takes action at the scene that raises a reasonable possibility of danger or flight; 2) where the police have information that the suspect is currently armed; 3) where the stop closely follows a violent crime; and 4) where the police have information that a crime that may involve violence is about to occur.” Washington, 98 F.3d at 16 GREEN V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 1189; see also Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting and applying Washington factors). These factors should all be considered in light of the specificity of the information law enforcement has to suggest both that the individuals are the proper suspects and that they are likely to resist arrest or police interrogation. Washington, 98 F.3d at 1189–90. The number of police officers present is also highly relevant. Id. at 1190. While these considerations are not exhaustive, they all inform the ultimate inquiry of whether the officers’ conduct was a “reasonable response to legitimate safety concerns on the part of the investigating officers.” Id. at 1186. As in the unlawful seizure context, because this inquiry is fact specific, it is often left to the determination of a jury. When reviewing this case through the lens of Washington, in the light most favorable to Green, a rational jury could find that this incident exceeded the limits of an investigative detention under Terry, and therefore judgment cannot be granted to Defendants as a matter of law. The tactics used were extremely intrusive, yet none of the Washington factors justifying such tactics were present: (1) it is uncontested that Green was compliant with law enforcement at all times; (2) the police had no specific information that Green was armed; (3) the stop did not closely follow a violent crime; and (4) the police did not have information that a violent crime was about to occur. All of these factors count against a finding that the officers’ conduct was a reasonable response to safety concerns. See Del Vizo, 918 F.2d at 825 (finding arrest where police drew and pointed guns, handcuffed suspect, and placed him in police car where defendant was completely cooperative at the scene). GREEN V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 17 Furthermore, the officers lacked specific information that Green was a proper suspect, and there was no indication that Green posed a threat to the officers necessitating the tactics employed. There were as many as six officers on the scene, in comparison to Green, who was alone and visibly unthreatening. During a portion of the time that the officers pointed their weapons at her, Green was handcuffed and secured; moreover, she weighed 250 pounds and was barely able to rise from her knees without assistance. A jury could certainly find that it was unreasonable for the officers to believe that their safety was at risk to the extent that such intrusive tactics were necessary. Compare United States v. Thompson, 906 F.2d 1292, 1297 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding presence of seven squad cars to be a factor in determining that intrusive actions taken by police against two suspects in car constituted an arrest); Washington, 98 F.3d at 1190 (finding arrest where two suspects outnumbered by four officers and police dog because “ratio of officers to suspects” weighs against reasonableness of intrusive action); with United States v. Jacobs, 715 F.2d 1343, 1346 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding it reasonable for single officer to order two suspects out of car at gunpoint shortly after robbery); United States v. Serna-Barreto, 842 F.2d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 1988) (finding conduct “prudent” where single officer outnumbered by suspects). Defendants argue that the existence of a stolen vehicle, in and of itself, is enough to satisfy the degree of force used; however, this is a conclusion over which reasonable jurors could disagree. In Washington, the unlawful arrest in question was based on a description of suspects for nineteen armed robberies. 98 F.3d at 1183. We found that the use of force was not justified given the totality of the circumstances in part because the suspects were cooperative and there was 18 GREEN V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO no reason to believe they were dangerous, despite the fact that the plaintiffs were suspected of a violent crime that involved weapons. Id. at 1190. We reached a similar conclusion in Del Vizo where we found that there was no indication that the suspect was dangerous despite the fact that he was suspected of drug dealing, another inherently dangerous crime, where the suspect was compliant and cooperative at all times. See 918 F.2d at 825 (citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied 469 U.S. 824 (recognizing that the drug trade is often dangerous and involves weapons)). The fact that Green was stopped on suspicion of a stolen vehicle does not by itself demonstrate that she presented a danger to the officers. Furthermore, numerous factors—that law enforcement lacked any specific information that she was armed, that Green was compliant with instructions at all times, that there was no evidence of recent violence, and that the police significantly outnumbered Green so as to diminish the risk she posed—count against such a finding. When viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Green, a rational jury could find that the tactics were not reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and that Green was subject to an arrest. If the stop amounted to an arrest, it would be unlawful absent probable cause. At the district court level, Defendants did not argue that there was probable cause to arrest Green (and Sergeant Kim himself stated in deposition that he did not believe there was probable cause); on appeal, Defendants argue that probable cause can be established. As it remains a triable question whether law enforcement even had reasonable suspicion to justify the detention, the existence of probable cause necessarily also remains a triable question. Green’s unlawful arrest claim cannot be dismissed as a matter of law and must be decided by a jury. GREEN V. CITY & CNTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO 19