Kristopher Monterroso v. City of San Diego ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         SEP 2 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KRISTOPHER MONTERROSO,                          No.    20-55980
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
    3:20-cv-00255-CAB-BGS
    v.
    CITY OF SAN DIEGO; MATTHEW                      MEMORANDUM*
    PURDY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 31, 2021**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: IKUTA, BENNETT, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    Kristopher Monterroso appeals the district court’s order granting qualified
    immunity to defendant Officer Matthew Purdy and dismissing Monterroso’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to state a claim. The parties are familiar with the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    facts as alleged so we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they
    violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their
    conduct was clearly established at the time.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 
    138 S. Ct. 577
    , 589 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district
    court held that Officer Purdy had probable cause to arrest Monterroso for driving
    under the influence, so Officer Purdy did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
    A warrantless arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment “if the officer
    has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in the officer’s
    presence,” 
    id. at 586
    , or an offense “has been . . . committed by the person being
    arrested,” Rodis v. City, Cnty. of S.F., 
    558 F.3d 964
    , 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted).1 “To determine whether an officer had
    probable cause for an arrest, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and
    then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an
    objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.” Wesby, 
    138 S. Ct. at 586
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[O]fficers may draw
    on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and
    1
    Under California Vehicle Code section 23152, it is illegal to drive “under
    the influence of any alcoholic beverage” or “any drug.”
    2
    deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well
    elude an untrained person.” Hart v. Parks, 
    450 F.3d 1059
    , 1067 (9th Cir. 2006)
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Probable cause is not a high
    bar.” Wesby, 
    138 S. Ct. at 586
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “It
    requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual
    showing of such activity.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    We exercise our discretion to consider only the second step of the qualified
    immunity analysis. See Evans v. Skolnik, 
    997 F.3d 1060
    , 1067 (9th Cir.
    2021). We may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the
    record. See Bill v. Brewer, 
    799 F.3d 1295
    , 1299 (9th Cir. 2015). Regardless of
    whether Officer Purdy had probable cause to arrest Monterroso, the arrest did not
    violate clearly established law. See Wesby, 
    138 S. Ct. at 589
    . No precedent places
    it beyond debate that Officer Purdy violated Monterroso’s constitutional rights by
    arresting Monterroso in these alleged circumstances. We give no weight
    to Neidermeyer v. Caldwell, 718 F. App’x 485 (9th Cir. 2017), a non-precedential
    disposition, which in any event merely identifies some facts that supported
    probable cause but does not hold that the lack of such factors vitiates probable
    cause, see 
    id.
     at 486–87.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-55980

Filed Date: 9/2/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/2/2021