Sibrian v. San Bernardino County Ex Rel. San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department , 526 F. App'x 752 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA SIBRIAN; et al., No. 11-56390
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-08014-JHN-
DTB
v.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, by and MEMORANDUM *
through the San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Department; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. NGUYEN, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Maria Sibrian, Gebin Sibrian and W. Sibrian, by and through her guardian
ad litem Maria Sibrian, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
the San Bernardino and Pomona defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.
The district court did not err in holding that the San Bernardino County and
Pomona defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on their reasonable
belief that the warrant authorized a search of the Sibrians’ residence. It was
reasonable for the defendants to rely on DeBoer’s information to obtain the warrant
because she was a known informant who explained the basis for her knowledge, cf.
United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 899, 907–08 (9th Cir. 2006), and her story was
corroborated by items found in her car, see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244
(1983). Moreover, a magistrate judge agreed that DeBoer’s information provided
probable cause to search the Sibrians’ residence, which is “the clearest indication
that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner.” Messerschmidt v.
Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 1245 (2012).
The district court did not err in holding that the Pomona defendants did not
violate the Sibrians’ Fourth Amendment rights by executing the warrant at night
because a violation of California Penal Code section 1533 is not a constitutional
violation. See Martinez v. Craven, 429 F.2d 18, 20 (9th Cir. 1970). The district
court also did not err in holding that the Pomona defendants were entitled to
2
summary judgment with respect to the alleged knock and announce violation
because the Sibrians did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the defendants adequately announced their presence.
Finally, the district court did not err in ruling that the Pomona defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Sibrians’ excessive force
and unreasonable detention claims. The defendants could have reasonably
concluded that the force used was not excessive given that Gebin threatened
Officer Gomez’s safety by hitting him with a dull machete, and Maria actively
resisted detention. See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 701–02 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc). For the same reason, the officers could have reasonably
determined it was necessary to detain Maria for twenty to forty minutes until the
search was completed. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 100 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
3