Opinion ID: 3013929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified immunity for police officers

Text: Qualified immunity shields “law enforcement officials who ‘reasonably but mistakenly’ conclude that their conduct comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 826 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam)). The privilege “‘gives ample room for mistaken judgments’ by protecting ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Id. The reasonableness of an officer’s beliefs or actions is a question for the court. Id. at 828. We have held that officers may reasonably rely on the statements of other officers in believing probable cause for the actions existed. Sharrar, 128 F.3d at 827-28. Furthermore, officers need not read the content of a warrant if they have received instruction prior to the search regarding the nature of the investigation and the scope of the search. Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1030 (9th Cir. 1996); Guerra v. Sutton, 783 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1986); Bilida v. M cCleod, 211 F.3d 166, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2000).
On the evening of Valeria’s death, Officer Slawter was dispatched to secure the Myers’ mobile home. Slawter already been informed that Valeria had been found dead in the mobile home and that she may have been sexually assaulted. When his superior 11 officer informed him over the radio that the warrant had been signed, Slawter commenced to search the house. Slawter, along with Officers Haug and Gregory, seized materials he believed to be relevant to the investigation. The District Court granted Slawter qualified immunity, finding that he reasonably believed probable cause existed for performing the search due to information he received from his superior officers. Myers contends the grant of qualified immunity was erroneous, since Slawter was incapable of conforming to the parameters of the search warrant without first having read it. But Slawter was informed by his superior officer prior to the search that he was to investigate the possible abuse of a minor and that a search warrant had been signed. The District Court did not err in finding that Slawter reasonably believed the search was legally justified, and that he was able to limit his search to those items relevant to an investigation regarding the sexual abuse of a minor. We see no error.
Canvassing the neighborhood on the night of the mobile home search, several residents told police that Myers’ wife Phyllis was having sex with children. Because of this, Detectives Hinson and Gahan decided to review the seized videotapes to determine whether they involved child pornography. The review lasted one and a half weeks. The District Court determined the decision to review the materials was objectively reasonable and the detectives were following orders by their superiors. 12 Myers claims Detective Hinson acted unreasonably in reviewing the tapes after the autopsy revealed Valeria was not abused sexually. He contends there is a factual dispute as to whether it was Detective Hinson or her superior who made the ultimate decision to retain and review the tapes and that this issue should have been submitted to the jury. But this determination is immaterial, as the decision to retain and review the videotapes was objectively reasonable. As the District Court stated, “given the unfortunate frequency of this type of report today, the authorities would have been loath to summarily dismiss such allegations.” Myers, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 409. The detectives reviewed the tapes to follow up on the allegations made by the neighbors, and they offered to return the tapes as soon as the review was completed. We see no error.