Opinion ID: 3064918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Citizen’s Arrest

Text: Hopkins also alleges that he was arrested for “hit-and-run” without probable cause.13 This second arrest was executed pursuant to Talib’s authority to perform a citizen’s arrest under CAL. PENAL CODE § 837, which allows “[a] private person [to] arrest another . . . [f]or a public offense committed or attempted in h[er] presence.” The issue with respect to this second arrest is thus whether, under the federal Constitution, police officers are required to have independent probable cause when effectuating an arrest authorized by a private citizen. We first addressed this question in Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001). In that case, a woman who was arrested after having an argument with a city bus driver later brought suit under § 1983. We concluded that the “bus driver[ ] made a citizen’s arrest . . . . and delegated to [the] [o]fficers . . . the task of taking [the 13 Unlike in the other claims alleged, Officer Nguyen was an integral participant in this arrest because he provided Talib with the citizen’s arrest form and explained the procedure to her. HOPKINS v. BONVICINO 9055 plaintiff] into custody.” 261 F.3d at 920. We upheld the grant of summary judgment to the officers on the plaintiff’s statelaw claims for false arrest because California law explicitly exempts officers effectuating a citizen’s arrest from civil liability. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 847. However, we reversed dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal claims, holding that the officers could be liable under the Fourth Amendment because they did not have sufficient independent probable cause to arrest Arpin. See Arpin, 261 F.3d at 925. [21] Given Arpin’s rule that the federal Constitution requires police officers to have independent probable cause when effectuating a citizen’s arrest, and taking the facts in this case in the light most favorable to Hopkins, the defendant-officers violated Hopkins’ constitutional rights when they took him into custody because they did not have probable cause to support Talib’s arrest for hit-and-run. The hit-and-run statute on which Talib predicated her arrest contains as an element that there be some damage to the vehicles (or to some other property). See CAL. VEH. CODE § 20002; People v. Carbajal, 899 P.2d 67, 72 n.10 (Cal. 1995) (“The essential elements of a violation of section 20002 [include] that the defendant: . . . knew damage resulted from the accident . . . .”). However, Officer Nguyen personally inspected and took photographs of the vehicles involved in the purported “accident,” and those photographs do not appear to show any damage to the cars. “In this procedural context, where summary judgment [is at issue], we must credit the video evidence submitted by [the non-moving party].” Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Hopkins also asserted in his deposition that “there was nothing wrong with either vehicle,” an assertion we must take as true. If there was no damage to the cars, then the officers did not have probable cause to believe that a violation of § 20002 had occurred. Therefore, Hopkins has properly alleged that the officers acted unlawfully when they took him into custody on the basis of Talib’s citizen’s arrest without independent probable cause. 9056 HOPKINS v. BONVICINO Having concluded that the officers violated Hopkins’ rights, we must next consider whether the rule that independent probable cause must support an officer’s effectuation of a citizen’s arrest was clearly established at the time Hopkins was arrested. This is a close question. We conclude that even though Arpin was decided two years before the conduct at issue in this case, the rule it sets forth was not clearly established at the time of Hopkins’ arrest. Although Arpin held that it was analyzing a citizen’s arrest when it discussed the officers’ liability under the state-law claims at issue, when the court turned its attention to the federal claims it described the municipal bus driver who executed the citizen’s arrest as “ac- t[ing] ‘with the intent to assist the government in its investigatory . . . purposes.’ ” Arpin, 261 F.3d at 924 (quoting United States v. Attson, 900 F.2d 1427, 1433 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, the court held that the citizen “summoned the police . . . not for an independent purpose, but as a governmental employee acting with the intent to assist the . . . County.” Id. In light of this language, Arpin could reasonably be read to suggest that the citizen bus driver was acting as an agent of the state, and therefore not executing a true citizen’s arrest.14 Cf. CAL. PENAL CODE § 837 (defining citizen’s arrest as executed by a “private person”). Given this lack of clarity, a reasonable officer might not have known that taking Hopkins into custody solely on the basis of the citizen’s arrest in this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Since Arpin was decided, both our court and a district court in this circuit have held in unpublished opinions that the “teachings in Arpin . . . require police officers to conduct additional investigation on a citizen’s arrest” in order to establish independent probable cause prior to effectuating that 14 The Arpin court further held that the officers in that case did not have independent probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, but it is unclear whether the court’s holding simply rearticulated the rule announced in Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 144 (9th Cir. 1991), that a statement from an aggrieved witness is insufficient to support probable cause. HOPKINS v. BONVICINO 9057 arrest. Sin v. Crystal Park Hotel Casino, 77 F. App’x 433, 434 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted); accord Salisbury v. Ward, No. 06-2993-MMC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94025 at -11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006) (“[The requirement] that a warrantless arrest . . . ‘be supported by probable cause . . . .’ applies even when the arrestee is taken into custody pursuant to a citizen’s arrest.”). However, while unpublished opinions “can be considered in determining whether the law was clearly established,” Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2004), both of these opinions were issued after the underlying conduct in this lawsuit, which renders them incapable of making the right at issue clearly established at the time of the violation. [22] Because Arpin is unclear as to whether the bus driver in that case was acting as a quasi-law enforcement officer or as a private citizen in executing the arrest, we hold that the requirement that a police officer establish independent probable cause before taking individuals into custody solely on the basis of a citizen’s arrest was not clearly established in 2003. Arpin’s less-than-clear reasoning makes it uncertain whether at that time a “reasonable officer” would have known that it was unlawful to take Hopkins into custody solely because Talib had arrested him. It is equally uncertain whether such an officer would have known that he needed independent probable cause in order to do so.15 Accordingly, we hold that 15 Until a year prior to the time when Hopkins was arrested, a California police officer who refused to take an individual into custody following a citizen’s arrest could “be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year;” that provision has since been repealed. CAL. PENAL CODE § 142 (2001), amended by Assem. No. 1835, 2001-2002 Sess. (Cal. 2002). We do not mean to imply that a conflict between an officer’s liability under state law versus under federal law creates a lack of clearly established federal law. Rather, when faced with a close question regarding whether the federal law itself is clearly established, we simply note that the fact that state law immunizes similar conduct may tend to support an officer’s claim of qualified immunity. 9058 HOPKINS v. BONVICINO although Hopkins’ second arrest did indeed violate his constitutional right to be free from seizure absent probable cause, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to that arrest.16