Frank Johnson v. City of Morro Bay

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK JOHNSON, No. 21-55666
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:20-cv-05178-SVW-GJS
v.
CITY OF MORRO BAY, a municipal entity; MEMORANDUM*
WILL MARVOS, an individual; JEREMY
PAINTER, an individual,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
UNKNOWN OFFICERS AND
PERSONNEL OF THE MORRO BAY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOES, 2-10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2022
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff asks this court to reverse the district court’s entry of partial summary
judgment in favor of Defendants on his Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure
claim. The material facts in this case are undisputed, and there is uncontroverted
body camera footage of Plaintiff’s encounter with the police. Because the parties
are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to
provide context to our ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant officers violated the Fourth Amendment
by arresting him in his home without a warrant. Plaintiff admittedly “stepped outside
to meet the officers in the driveway,” which is undisputedly a “common-area.”
Plaintiff spoke with the officers briefly before inviting them into his residence. The
officers initially declined to enter, but Plaintiff insisted. The officers entered
Plaintiff’s home and arrested him a few minutes later. It is undisputed that the
officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
Plaintiff took himself outside of the physical zone of privacy of his residence
by crossing the threshold and entering the common-area driveway. See United
States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423–24 (1976) (holding that a warrantless arrest of
an individual in a public place upon probable cause does not violate the Fourth
Amendment); cf United States v. Quaempts, 411 F.3d 1046, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2005)
(holding that because the defendant “did not take himself outside the physical zone
2
of privacy of the house . . . the officers could not make a warrantless arrest.”).
Once in public, Johnson invited the officers into his home. The undisputed
bodycam footage shows that he consented to the warrantless arrest. See United
States v. Garcia, 997 F.2d 1273, 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding an inference of
consent when a defendant opened his door and, after law enforcement officers said,
“we’d like to talk to you,” the defendant responded, “‘okay,’ nodded and stepped
back”). Accordingly, United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016), is
distinguishable, and we see no violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be
free of an unlawful seizure.
AFFIRMED.
3