Carole Saunders v. Richard Silva , 473 F. App'x 769 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROLE SAUNDERS, No. 11-15134
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-08029-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RICHARD SILVA and CONNIE LYNN
SILVA,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Richard Silva appeals from the district court’s order entering judgment
against him on Carole Saunders’s claim that Silva violated her Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court found that Silva seized Saunders when he ordered her to
leave church and return to her home. It further found that this seizure was
unreasonable because Silva, as a Deputy Animal Control Officer within the
Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, lacked the authority to conduct an arrest.
Although Silva was not authorized under Arizona law to arrest Saunders, “state
restrictions [on arrest authority] do not alter the Fourth Amendment’s protections.”
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 176 (2008). To constitute a Fourth Amendment
violation, an arrest by a state officer must be unreasonable under the United States
Constitution, rather than simply not in compliance with state laws. See United
States v. Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1167, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2005).
In general, the “constitutionality of a warrantless arrest is determined by the
existence of probable cause.” Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1990).
In this case, Silva observed, at Saunders’ residence, animals with no water and
animals that Saunders was not permitted to possess under the terms of her
probation agreement. Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances
within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe
that the suspect has committed . . . an offense.” Id. at 773 (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Based on Silva’s observations, he had sufficient cause
to believe that Saunders had committed a misdemeanor violation of Arizona’s
2
animal control law. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2910(A)(1). “If an officer has
probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor
criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment,
arrest the offender.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001).
Silva’s arrest of Saunders, although outside of the scope of his authority, was
supported by probable cause, and thus the mere fact of her arrest did not violate the
Constitution.
Although “[a]n otherwise lawful seizure can violate the Fourth Amendment
if it is executed in an unreasonable manner,” United States v. Alverez-Tejeda, 491
F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2007), the district court did not consider whether the
manner in which Saunders was seized was unreasonable, and the Appellee did not
raise this argument on appeal. We therefore do not consider any other potential
sources of unreasonableness and hold that Silva’s seizure of Saunders, supported
by probable cause, was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We
reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for the entry of judgment in
favor of Silva.
REVERSED and REMANDED
3