Document: Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DARIN RYBURN, ET AL. v. GEORGE R. HUFF, ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 11–208. Decided January 23, 2012 PER CURIAM. Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Depart- ment, responded to a call Bellarmine-Jefferson High School in Burbank, California. When arrived at school, principal informed them that stu- dent, Vincent Huff, was rumored have written letter threatening “shoot up” school. App. Pet. for Cert. 2. The reported many parents, after hear- ing rumor, had decided keep their children home. Ibid. expressed concern safety of her students requested investigate threat. Id., 42, 54–55. In course conducting interviews Vincent’s classmates, learned been absent school days he frequently subjected bullying. additionally one class- mates believed capable carrying out alleged 44. found absences his history being bullying as cause concern. received training on targeted violence were aware these characteristics are common among perpetrators shootings. 56–58, 63. continue investigation by interviewing Vincent. Vin- cent’s house, Officer Zepeda knocked door announced several times 2 RYBURN HUFF Department. No answered or otherwise Zepeda’s knocks. Sergeant then called home telephone. could hear phone ringing inside but no an- swered. next tried calling cell mother, Mrs. Huff. Huff phone, identified himself in- quired about location. she house. inquired location, him her. told outside speak her, hung up phone. 2–3. One minutes later, walked house stood front steps. advised there discuss threats. Vincent, apparently rumor circulating responded, “I can’t believe you’re here that.” 3. asked if they discus- sion refused. Ryburn’s experience juvenile bureau sergeant, it “extremely unusual” parent decline an officer’s request interview inside. 3, 73–74. also odd never reason visit. After declined discussion inside, any guns “immediately turn[ing] around r[unning] into house.” Ryburn, who “scared because [he] didn’t know what house” “seen too killed,” entered behind 75. Ser- 3 geant concerned “officer safety” did not want enter alone. remaining officers, stand- earshot while talked last, assumption given permission enter. 3–4. Upon entering remained living room Eventually, father challenged officers’ authority be there. side total 5 10 minutes. During time, Mr. They conduct search property. ultimately concluded false, conclusion 4. Huffs brought this action against under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S. C. §1983. complaint alleges violated Huffs’ Fourth Amendment rights without warrant. Follow- 2-day bench trial, District Court judg- ment favor officers. resolved conflicting testimony regarding Huff’s response inquiry finding turned ran entitled qualified immunity behavior, combined information gathered led reason- able “that weapons family members them- selves danger.” 6. noted “[w]ithin very short period 4 confronted facts circumstances giving rise grave nature danger confronting.” 6–7. With respect kind “rapidly evolving incident,” explained, courts should especially reluctant “to fault police obtaining warrant.” 7. A divided panel Ninth Circuit affirmed Dis- trict consented, re- versed petitioners. majority upheld Court’s findings fact, disagreed petitioners quali- fied immunity. acknowledged allowed warrant reasonably immediate entry is necessary protect themselves others serious harm, even lack probable crime has committed. 24. But determined that, case, “any belief serious, im- minent harm would objectively unreasonable” “[Mrs. Huff] merely asserted right end conversation returned home.” 25. Judge Rawlinson dissented. She explained “the discrete incident precipitated case question wheth- er 31. faulted “recit[ing] sanitized account event” differed markedly which conceded must credited. looked “cases specifi- cally address scenario where officer concerns prompted entry” ra- tionale articulated those cases, “a justified making warrantless ensure gun answering whether anyone weapon.” 31, 33, 37. Rawlinson’s analysis issue correct. decision violation roughly com- parable present case. On contrary, some our opinions may read pointing oppo- sition direction. Brigham City Stuart, 547 398, 400 (2006), we held residence when “an reasonable basis believ- occupant . imminently threatened [serious injury].” We “ ‘[t]he need preserve life avoid injury justification illegal exigency emergency.’ ” 403 (quoting Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 392 (1978)). addition, Georgia Ran- dolph, 103, 118 stated “it silly suggest commit tort [a residence] determine (or soon will) occur.” decisions mean permits en- ter concluding imminent threat violence. such reaching conclusion. wrote: “[T]he testified number factors own persons residence: unusual behavior parents telephone; fact inquire 6 visit express investigating son; telephone officer; refused tell house; finally, back questioned. That obtained school—that student victim bullying, days, ‘shoot up’ school—led This belief, held, “objectively rea- sonable,” particularly since situation evolving” make quick decisions. majority—far removed scene opportunity dissect elements situa- tion—confidently really fear else. As saw things, irrelevant respond presence legal obligation knock answer attributed significance finally reached abruptly middle conver- sation. And, according majority, reaction be- “merely 7 Confronted Court, position come others. Circuit’s contrary flawed numerous reasons. First, although purported accept changed find- ings key respects. correctly observed, “immedi- ately implicitly rejected telling going get husband. reverse simply “may weighed witnesses evidence another manner.” 15. majority’s determination rested finding. According “mere- ly home” go husband.” 12, Second, appears taken view cannot regarded matter con- cern so long lawful. Accordingly, ma- jority (immediately turning running inside) alarm 8 tinue police. It with- saying, however, lawful portend Third, method analyzing string events unfolded entirely unrealistic. each separate event isolation each, itself, give sense combination mun- dane viewed paint alarming picture. Fourth, heed wise admonition judges cautious second-guessing assessment, made scene, presented particular situation. benefit hindsight calm deliber- ation, unreason- imminent. instructed reasonableness “must judged perspective rather than 20/20 vision hindsight” “[t]he calculus embody allow- ance often forced split-second judgments—in tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving.” Graham Con- nor, 490 386, 396–397 (1989). Judged proper unfolding chain culminated refusing guns, petitioners’ minently reasonable. sum, permitted 9 fearing And based Court. petition certiorari granted, judgment reversed, remanded ordered.

Category: 0