Palmieri v. Clark County

131 Nev., Advance Opinion 102-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JUDY PALMIERI, No. 65143
Appellant,
vs.
CLARK COUNTY, A POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF
FILED
NEVADA; AND DAWN STOCKMAN, DEC 3 1 2015
CE096, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER caE K. 1.R4DEMAN2-..
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER 0.4:1
EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY OF 6Y4... DEPUit'CL'erth:
CLARK,
Respondents.
Appeal from a district court order granting summary
judgment in a civil rights and a torts action. Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge.
Affirmed.
Potter Law Offices and Cal J. Potter, III, and Cal J. Potter, IV, Las Vegas,
for Appellant.
Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, and Matthew J. Christian, Deputy
District Attorney, Clark County,
for Respondents.
BEFORE GIBBONS, C.J., TAO and SILVER, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
OPINION
By the Court, SILVER, J.:
Appellant Judy Palmieri was criminally charged after a search
of her residence revealed several violations of the Clark County Code's
provisions for the health and welfare of animals In obtaining the warrant
to search Palmieri's residence, respondents Dawn Stockman and Clark
County relied in part on a tip from an informant who, Palmieri later
alleged, provided a false identity when she filed a complaint against
Palmieri. After Palmieri obtained the evidence underlying her allegation
that the informant provided a false identity, Palmieri sued Stockman and
Clark County, asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a Monelll claim, and
several state law causes of action. Respondents moved for summary
judgment, which the district court granted.
On appeal, the primary issue is whether the district court
erred by granting summary judgment with respect to Palmieri's § 1983
claim against Stockman based on a finding that Stockman was entitled to
qualified immunity. 2 We hold that Stockman was entitled to qualified
aMonell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
2 Palmieri also challenges the portions of the district court's order
granting Clark County summary judgment on her Monell claim and
Stockman summary judgment on her claims for negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. We
have considered these arguments, and they lack merit because, as fully
discussed below, we conclude that there was administrative probable
cause sufficient to support an administrative search warrant. For the
same reason, we need not reach Palmieri's argument that the district
court improperly concluded that Stockman was entitled to discretionary
act immunity. Although Palmieri's complaint presented additional claims,
she does not challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment
continued on next page...
COURT Or APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) V4478 e
immunity for the following reasons: (1) Palmieri failed to make a
substantial showing that Stockman knowingly and intentionally, or with a
reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the search
warrant affidavit supporting the search warrant for Palmieri's residence;
and (2) Palmieri failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether probable cause existed to support an administrative search
warrant for her residence. Therefore, we conclude the district court
appropriately granted Stockman and Clark County's motion for summary
judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Individuals significant to this case
Respondent Dawn Stockman is a licensed veterinary
technician and animal control officer for Clark County Animal Control—
an agency of respondent Clark County. At the time of the events
underlying this appeal, Stockman had been an animal control officer for a
little more than three years. Appellant Judy Palmieri is a pet store owner
and a resident of Clark County; her home was searched pursuant to a
warrant obtained by Stockman. Kaitlyn Nichols is not a party to this case,
but someone used her name to file a complaint against Palmieri with
animal control. Prior to the events giving rise to this appeal, Nichols
worked at one of Palmieri's pet stores.
...continued
with respect to those claims on appeal, and, therefore, we do not address
them today. See Powell v. Liberty Mitt. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161
11.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues not raised on
appeal are deemed waived).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947R
The complaint and investigation
On May 10, 2010, an animal control supervisor with the City
of Las Vegas, Richard Molinari, received a complaint from a woman who
identified herself as Kaitlyn Nichols (the Informant) against Palmieri for
alleged animal abuse. Because Palmieri is a Clark County property owner
and outside the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas, Molinari forwarded
the Informant's complaint to Clark County Animal Control. Clark County
Animal Control assigned the complaint to Stockman, who called the
Informant on May 10, 2010, to discuss her complaint. During the
conversation, Stockman requested that the Informant prepare a written
complaint. The Informant subsequently prepared a signed written
statement and faxed it to Stockman. After receiving the written
statement from the Informant, Stockman called the Informant once again
to confirm that she received everything that the Informant had sent.
Stockman later provided the following account of her
conversation with the Informant in a search warrant affidavit:
[Nichols] then told me that she use [d] to
work for Mrs. Palmieri at Meadow [s] Pets. She
was asked to help Mrs. Palmieri move some boxes
at her place of residence. She arrived at
[Palmieri's residence]. Once Ms. Nichols was
inside the residence she saw several animals in
the house. Ms. Nichols also told me there w[ere]
several animals kept in the garage in kennels.
The animals on the property looked very thin and
several appeared to have mats and fecal [matter]
all over them. Ms. Nichols said a lot of the
animals appeared to be unhealthy. Ms. Nichols
then went on to tell me Mrs. Palmieri breeds the
COURT DE APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 19475 eo
dogs and sells them at her pet shop. Ms. Nichols
also stated Mrs Palmieri also houses animals that
are sick or too young for the pet shop in her house.
To corroborate the Informant's complaint, Stockman checked
property records to confirm Palmieri owned the residence identified by the
Informant, and she reviewed Clark County Animal Control's records for
previous citations against Palmieri. The search revealed that Palmieri
owned the residence identified by the Informant, Palmieri owned a pet
store, Clark County Animal Control had responded to Palmieri's residence
in January 2006 regarding allegations that Palmieri had a dead animal in
her garage, 3 and Clark County Animal Control had received numerous
health and welfare complaints regarding one of Palmieri's pet stores, Bark
Avenue, including a complaint in September 2007. 4 Stockman did not
3 Jason Elff, an animal control officer for Clark County Animal
Control, responded to Palmieri's residence regarding the dead animal
complaint. Officer Elff reported that he smelled a foul odor but could not
confirm whether it was a dead animal. Palmieri would not permit Officer
Elff on the property without a warrant and advised him to leave. Knowing
that Palmieri previously refused to allow an animal control officer to enter
her property without a warrant, Stockman elected to seek a search
warrant after receiving the Informant's complaint.
4 It
is unclear from the record exactly how many citations Palmieri's
pet stores have received. During her deposition, Palmieri acknowledged
that in 2000 she received an 18-count indictment related to violations at
one of her pet stores. Palmieri also acknowledged she received citations in
December 2009 for violations at one of her pet stores; however, she alleges
that the basis for the citations was false. Regarding Bark Avenue, the
search warrant affidavit only details the September 2007 complaint, and
the record does not indicate why Stockman did not provide details
regarding the other complaints against Palmieri's businesses.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 19418 e
investigate the Informant's complaint further or solicit additional
information from the Informant.'
The warrant
Based on the complaint and investigation, Stockman decided
to seek a warrant authorizing the search of Palmieri's residence.
Stockman prepared an "Administrative Search and Seizure Warrant" and
an "Application and Affidavit for Administrative Search and Seizure
Warrant," which included the above account of her conversation with the
Informant and the corroborating information that Stockman gathered.
Two of Stockm.an's supervisors and a deputy district attorney
subsequently reviewed and approved Stockman's proposed search warrant
and search warrant affidavit, and a district court judge signed the search
warrant and authorized the search on May 18, 2010, after Stockman
swore to the truth of the contents of the affidavit.
The search
Stockman executed the search warrant together with another
animal control officer and an officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department on May 19, 2010. 6 During the search, the officers found 24
'Before becoming an animal control officer and veterinary
technician, Stockman worked at one of Palmieri's pet stores. As such, she
had independent knowledge that Palmieri owned a pet store at one time.
But Stockman did not include that information in the search warrant
affidavit.
@The group knocked and announced at Palmieri's front door, but
Palmieri did not answer. The group then walked around Palmieri's house
to a garage where they knocked on the garage door and heard dogs
barking. After gaining access to Palmieri's backyard, the group entered
Palmieri's house and announced their presence again. Palmieri, who had
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALs
OF
NEVADA
6
(0) 1947B e
adult dogs and 5 puppies in Palmieri's house and garage. Palmieri could
not provide proof that any of the animals had received a rabies vaccination
or been spayed or neutered as required by Clark County Code. The
officers found that Palmieri provided the animals a sanitary environment
and adequate food and water. However, because two elderly dogs looked
sickly and because Palmieri could not provide proof the dogs had been to a
veterinarian's office recently, the officers impounded those dogs for a
welfare check by a veterinarian. The officers also impounded the five
puppies because Palmieri did not have a breeding permit. As a result of
the search, the officers cited Palmieri for failing to provide proof of rabies
vaccination, failing to obtain a permit for intact dogs, and failing to
provide proof of medical care. 7
After the search, Palmieri questioned Stockman regarding the
warrant and the Informant's complaint. In response, Stockman showed
Palmieri the Informant's signed complaint, and Palmieri acknowledged
that the signature on the complaint looked like Kaitlyn Nichols'
...continued
been in the shower when the officers first arrived, subsequently appeared
from around the corner.
As Stockman and the other animal control officer began searching
the house, the LVMPD officer instructed Palmieri to go outside where she
could read the warrant. According to Palmieri, she was not permitted to
enter her residence for approximately 20 to 30 minutes. During that time,
Palmieri was not handcuffed, but "[she] was in [her] pajamas, had no
underwear on, no makeup, [and] no shoes."
7 TheClark County District Attorney's office subsequently brought
five charges against Palmieri in Las Vegas Justice Court. For reasons
that are unclear from the appendix, the justice court dismissed those
charges.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
7
(0) 194711 me.
signature. 8 According to Palmieri, Stockman told her "animal control
ha[d] never been able to get anything on [her] until now." 9
The aftermath of the search
Approximately five months after the search of Palmieri's
residence, Kaitlyn Nichols signed an affidavit averring that she never
made a complaint regarding Palmieri to Clark County Animal Control or
signed any such complaint. Nichols further indicated that she had never
been to Palmieri's residence and that she believed a former coworker "who
ha[d] previously stolen [her] identity and forged [her] name [ ] on bank
checks" was responsible for filing the complaint against Palmieri. 19
Palmieri subsequently sued Stockman and respondent Clark
County. Palmieri's complaint included four claims for relief: (1) a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Stockman for violation of her constitutional
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) a Monell claim
asserting § 1983 liability against Clark County, (3) a claim against
Stockman encompassing several state law causes of action, and (4) a
8 Duringher deposition, Palmieri explained that she was familiar
with Nichols because Nichols worked at one of her pet stores, Frisky Pet
Emporium.
9At •her deposition, Palmieri stated she understood Stockman's
statement to mean "on the very day the [breeding permit] ordinance went
into effect, that they waited with a warrant till that day so that if they
could find anything, they could add more charges to it, and that this way it
would be their hopes of finally getting something."
mDuring her deposition, Palmieri stated that the former coworker
identified by Nichols was one of Palmieri's former employees and that
Nichols lived with the former coworker that she identified.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
8
(0) 194D3 cvgro
separate claim against Stockman and Clark County for "illegal search and
illegal warrant."
Palmieri's deposition
During her deposition, Palmieri acknowledged that the Clark
County Code requires a homeowner to obtain a special permit or a zoning
variance to possess more than 3 dogs, and she acknowledged she did not
obtain such a permit or variance before housing 29 animals at her
residence. Palmieri also stated that, for approximately 18 years, she had
been bringing animals home from her pet stores and keeping them at her
residence for short periods. Palmieri further acknowledged she had been
charged numerous times for health- and welfare-related violations of the
Clark County Code—both personally and through her businesses.
Although Palmieri acknowledged that Clark County was not
involved with all of her previous violations, she stated that "the head of
Animal Control has had [her] on his particular list for many years."
According to Palmieri, she is on the head of Animal Control's list because
he "doesn't like women, and. . . [he does not] like[ ] women involved in pet
stores." She believes Clark County wants "to see [her] out of
business. . . . [and that] the county doesn't appreciate pet stores or
business—viable businesses in the county. And that's kind of their quest."
Palmieri, however, explained that she did not believe Stockman was part
of the conspiracy or that Stockman acted with malice against her.
Instead, Palmieri suggested Stockman "came in as an officer instructed to
go ahead and serve th[e] warrant and see what she could come up with."
Palmieri also stated she believes Stockman actually received the
complaint, but she thinks a former employee called Clark County Animal
Control, pretending to be Nichols.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
9
(0) 194713 se,
Summary judgment
After the close of discovery, Clark County and Stockman
moved for summary judgment, arguing Palmieri failed to provide
sufficient evidence to support her claims, and the district court granted
that motion in its entirety. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
In this appeal, we primarily address whether the district court
appropriately granted Stockman summary judgment on Palmieri's § 1983
claim. Palmieri contends that she established a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Stockman was entitled to qualified immunity, and,
therefore, she asserts that the district court improperly granted Stockman
summary judgment on her § 1983 claim. Stockman disagrees.
Standard of review
This court reviews a district court's decision granting or
denying summary judgment de novo. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724,
729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when
the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; NRCP 56(c).
Qualified immunity
Section 1983 provides a check against the abuse of state power
by creating a cause of action against state and local officials who violate
an individual's federal rights while acting within the scope of their duties.
State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 153, 42 P.3d
233, 242 (2002). To successfully assert a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff
must establish that "the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a
person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
10
(0) 19473
United States." Id. at 153, 42 P.3d at 241. However, where a state or
local official's discretionary act does not violate clearly established federal
statutory or constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity
affords that official protection from civil liability. Butler ex rel. Biller v.
Bayer, 123 Nev. 450, 458, 168 P.3d 1055, 1061 (2007). Because qualified
immunity provides "an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other
burdens of litigation," courts should resolve qualified immunity defenses
"at the earliest possible stage in litigation," and, therefore, "a finding of
qualified immunity is an appropriate basis for granting summary
judgment." Id. (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001),
overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236
(2009)).
In determining whether a government official is entitled to
summary judgment based on qualified immunity, this court considers
(1) whether the facts, when "[t] aken in the light most favorable to the
party asserting the injury.... show the officer's conduct violated a
constitutional right," and (2) whether, at the time of the alleged violation,
the right was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; Butler, 123
Nev. at 458-59, 168 P.3d at 1061-62 (applying the Saucier test). We need
not follow the rigid sequential approach set forth in Saucier, but rather,
may determine which prong to address first based upon the specific
context of the case before this court. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. If no
constitutional violation occurred, even where the facts are taken in the
light most favorable to the § 1983 plaintiff, or if the constitutional right
was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional
violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
11
(0) 194M FDGIBIF
summary judgment is appropriate. Butler, 123 Nev. at 458-59,168 P.3d
1061-62 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02).
On appeal, Palmieri argues that Stockman was not entitled to
qualified immunity because the search of her residence violated her
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
With regard to Palmieri's argument that Stockman violated her
constitutional rights, we address two issues: first, we consider whether
Palmieri may challenge the validity of the search warrant based on the
veracity of the search warrant affidavit under Franks v. Delaware, 438
U.S. 154 (1978); and second, we examine whether, even without a Franks
violation, the search warrant affidavit was insufficient to establish
probable cause. We consider each of these constitutional issues in turn.
Franks v. Delaware and the Informant's fictitious name
Palmieri asserts that Stockman searched her residence
pursuant to an invalid search warrant because Stockman included the
Informant's fictitious name in the search warrant affidavit, and thereby
"knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,"
submitted a fictitious search warrant affidavit. By contrast, Stockman
argues that she was not required to investigate the Informant's identity;
that Palmieri did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Stockman knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the
truth, included a false statement in the search warrant affidavit; and that,
even if the Informant's name is purged from the search warrant affidavit,
it was nevertheless sufficient to establish probable cause.
Franks, a criminal case, is the seminal decision addressing a
challenge to the validity of a search warrant based on the veracity of the
supporting search warrant affidavit. In considering whether a criminal
defendant may challenge the validity of the search warrant by attacking
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
12
(0) 1947B
the search warrant affidavit, the Franks Court confirmed that search
warrant affidavits are entitled to a presumption of validity. 438 U.S. at
171. But the Franks Court reasoned that if search warrant affidavits were
not subject to impeachment, then the probable cause requirement would
be a nullity, as government officials could deliberately falsify information
with impunity. Id. at 168. Thus, the Franks Court concluded an
evidentiary hearing is required where (1) "the defendant makes a
substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the
affiant in the warrant affidavit," and (2) "the allegedly false statement is
necessary to the finding of probable cause." Id. at 155-56; see also United
States v. DeLeon, 979 F.2d 761, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1992) (applying Franks to
omissions of material fact). Even when a search warrant affidavit
includes a false statement within the contemplation of Franks, an
evidentiary hearing is not required if, after the false statement is purged,
the search warrant affidavit remains sufficient to support a finding of
probable cause. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72.
While the Nevada Supreme Court has consistently applied the
standard set forth in Franks in the criminal context, see, e.g., Garrettson v.
State, 114 Nev. 1064, 1068, 967 P.2d 428, 430 (1998), it has not considered
the applicability of Franks to § 1983 claims. This court, however, can
discern no reason not to apply Franks in the civil context; whether a
criminal defendant or a civil plaintiff raises Franks, the conduct under
attack is identical. Moreover, nearly every circuit of the federal courts of
appeal has applied Franks in addressing defenses of qualified immunity
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
13
10) 1947B airy>
from civil liability.il Therefore, we take this opportunity to clarify that
Franks applies in the civil context.
In the criminal context, Franks issues generally arise prior to
trial during suppression hearings where the trial court is necessarily the
finder of fact. Because the jury is generally the finder of fact in civil cases,
such as this one, we must consider what role the judge plays in resolving a
Franks issue on summary judgment given the United States Supreme
Court's qualified immunity jurisprudence and the requirement in Franks
that the party moving for an evidentiary hearing make a substantial
preliminary showing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155, 170. To resolve that
question, we look to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), and persuasive caselaw from the Ninth
Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
To prevent excessive disruption of government and facilitate
the resolution of meritless claims on summary judgment, the Supreme
Court held in Harlow that "government officials performing discretionary
functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id.
at 818. That standard places the focus of the qualified immunity analysis
"See, e.g., Whitlock v. Brown, 596 F.3d 406, 410 (7th Cir. 2010);
Miller v. Prince George's Cnty., 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2007); Kohler v.
Englade, 470 F.3d 1104, 1113 (5th Cir. 2006); Burke v. Town of Walpole,
405 F.3d 66, 82 (1st Cir. 2005); Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1293
(10th Cir. 2004); Hunter v. Namanny, 219 F.3d 825, 829 (8th Cir. 2000);
Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 1997); Kelly v. Curtis, 21
F.3d 1544, 1554 (11th Cir. 1994); Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592,
604 (2d Cir. 1991); Forster v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 896 F.2d 1146, 1148
(9th Cir. 1990); Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir. 1989).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
14
(0) 19475 44qac,
on the objective reasonableness of the government official's conduct as
measured by clearly established law. Id. Thus, in the qualified immunity
context, bare allegations of malice are insufficient "to subject government
officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching
discovery." Id. at 817-18.
The Ninth Circuit has observed that a tension exists "between
Harlow's emphasis on 'objective reasonableness' and cases in which the
'clearly established law' at issue contains a subjective element, such as
motive or intent." Branch v. Tunnell, 937 F.2d 1382, 1385 (9th Cir. 1991),
overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119
(9th Cir. 2002). Based on that tension, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a
standard for overcoming summary judgment that parallels the threshold
showing that a criminal defendant must make to establish entitlement to
a Franks hearing. Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 788-89 (9th Cir. 1995).
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
a plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on
a defense claim of qualified immunity if the
plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing
of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and
establish that, without the dishonestly included or
omitted information, the magistrate would not
have issued the warrant.
Id. at 789. If a § 1983 plaintiff both makes the requisite substantial
showing and establishes that the issuing court would not have issued the
warrant without the false information, then, and only then, does the
question of whether the government official's conduct was intentional or
reckless become a factual determination for the jury. Id. We find the
Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Branch and Hervey persuasive, and,
therefore, we adopt Hervey's standard for deciding Franks claims in the
summary judgment context. We address each prong in turn below.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
15
(0) 1947 a
Deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard
The evidence here does not support the proposition that
Stockman made a knowing and intentional false statement in her
affidavit. To the contrary, Palmieri conceded in her deposition that
Stockman did not harbor malice against her, that Stockman actually
received the complaint, and that Stockman was merely doing her job in
serving the search warrant. Nevertheless, the question of whether
Stockman showed reckless disregard for the truth still requires analysis
and elaboration.
Reckless disregard for the truth may be shown by establishing
that the warrant affiant entertained serious doubts with regard to the
truth of the search warrant affidavit's allegations. United States v.
Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 1984) (citing St. Amant v. Thompson,
390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)) (concluding that the First Amendment definition
of reckless disregard for the truth is applicable in the Franks context). A
party attacking the veracity of a search warrant affidavit may also
establish reckless disregard for the truth inferentially "from circumstances
evincing 'obvious reasons to doubt the veracity' of the allegations" in the
search warrant affidavit. Id. (quoting St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732).
Under Franks, conclusory assertions and allegations of
negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary
hearing. 438 U.S. at 171. And a criminal defendant seeking to attack a
search warrant affidavit cannot rely on the false statements of any
nongovernmental informant but, rather, must limit his or her challenge to
the deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the affiant. Id. ("The
deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted
today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.").
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
16
(0) I 94711
Here, in support of her challenge to the veracity of the search
warrant affidavit, Palmieri provided an affidavit from Nichols in which
Nichols averred that she never made or signed a complaint against
Palmieri, she had never been to Palmieri's residence, and she believed a
former coworker was responsible for filing the complaint. For purposes of
summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to
Palmieri and assume the Informant provided Stockman a false name-
Kaitlyn Nichols. See Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d
1026, 1029 (2005); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)
(providing that courts must consider the facts in the light most favorable
to the party asserting that his or her constitutional rights were violated
when considering whether to grant summary judgment based on qualified
immunity), overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 236 (2009). But, although Stockman included the Informant's
fictitious name in the search warrant affidavit, the alleged falsehood is
attributable to the Informant, rather than Stockman, and Palmieri cannot
use Franks to impeach the Informant. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171
(explaining that a challenge to a search warrant affidavit may not be
based on a nongovernmental informant's deliberate falsehood or reckless
disregard).
Palmieri's only direct allegation relevant to whether Stockman
recklessly disregarded the truth is that Stockman should have known that
the Informant provided a false identity. That allegation assumes that an
officer has a duty to investigate and confirm an informant's identity prior
to obtaining a search warrant based on an informant's tip. But Palmieri
did not present, and our research has not revealed, any legal authority to
support that assumption. To the contrary, the United States Supreme
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
17
(0) 19478 eo
Court has considered whether officers may rely on tips from anonymous
informants and concluded that a tip from an anonymous informant can
form at least part of the basis for reasonable suspicion or even probable
cause. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (discussing an
anonymous tip in the reasonable suspicion context); see also Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (considering an anonymous tip in the probable
cause context).
Because the anonymity of an informant affects the weight of
the various indicia of reliability accompanying the informant's tip, see
Gates, 462 U.S. at 237, the real issue in the present case is whether the
Informant is properly classified as an anonymous informant or an
identified citizen informant for purposes of assessing the reasonableness of
the search warrant. And, as discussed more below, where a citizen
informant provides a tip via telephone and states his or her occupation or
name and home and cellular telephone numbers, courts have found that
such information is sufficient to categorize the informant as an identified
citizen informant whose tip should be credited with a greater degree of
reliability than that of an anonymous informant. See, e.g., Maumee v.
Weisner, 720 N.E.2d 507 (Ohio 1999) (cataloging relevant cases, rejecting
an argument that an informant who provided a tip via telephone may
have provided a false identity, and concluding that the informant, who
provided a name and home and cellular telephone numbers, was an
identified citizen informant whose tip should be recognized as more
reliable than that of an anonymous informant).
The evidentiary basis for Palmieri's argument is also lacking.
Palmieri presented no evidence to suggest that Stockman knew the
Informant provided a false identity or entertained serious doubts as to the
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
18
101 1947R cre,
Informant's identity. See Williams, 737 F.2d at 602 (concluding that
reckless disregard for the truth may be established through evidence
establishing that the warrant affiant entertained cast serious doubts
regarding the allegations in the search warrant affidavit). Nor did she
present evidence from which a fact-finder could infer an obvious reason to
doubt the veracity of the allegations in the search warrant affidavit. Id.
(holding that reckless disregard for the truth may be proven inferentially
through evidence establishing an obvious reason to doubt the allegations
in the search warrant affidavit). By contrast, Stockman testified that she
believed and continues to believe that Nichols was the Informant, and
Palmieri did not dispute that testimony. Palmieri, therefore, did not make
the substantial preliminary showing necessary to survive a motion for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
In reality, Palmieri's allegation assumes that Stockman
should have known or suspected that the Informant provided a false
identity without providing a basis for that assumption, and, therefore, her
assertion amounts to a conclusory allegation of negligence, and such an
allegation does not constitute a substantial showing that Stockman acted
with a reckless disregard for the truth when she included the Informant's
false name in the search warrant affidavit. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171
(explaining that conclusory allegations and allegations of negligence are
insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing); see also Hervey, 65 F.3d at
789 (explaining that a plaintiff must make the same showing to reach a
jury in a § 1983 action as would be required of a criminal defendant to
obtain an evidentiary hearing under Franks). As Palmieri's offer of proof
is insufficient to satisfy the first prong of Franks, we conclude she cannot
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
19
(0) 194713 'Hervey, 65 F.3d at 788-89 (providing that to survive
summary judgment on a Franks issue, a plaintiff must make a substantial
showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and
establish that thefl search warrant affidavit was insufficient to establish
probable cause without the false information). But because Palmieri
raises a number of issues regarding the sufficiency of the search warrant
and because all of Palmieri's arguments regarding the district court's
grant of summary judgment turn on probable cause, we proceed to
consider whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause
to search Palmieri's residence such that Stockman is entitled to qualified
immunity under Saucier. In considering whether the search warrant was
supported by probable cause, we review the issuing court's probable cause
determination based on the search warrant affidavit as written, given
Palmieri's failure to make the requisite substantial preliminary showing
sufficient to overcome summary judgment with regard to her Franks
argument. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 (providing that where a party
satisfies the Franks test, the reviewing court must purge the false
statements from the search warrant affidavit and assess probable cause
based on the modified affidavit).
Probable cause
Palmieri contends the judge who issued the "Administrative
Search and Seizure Warrant" lacked an adequate basis for doing so
because Stockman did not investigate the Informant's identity, and,
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
20
10) 194711
therefore, the "Application and Affidavit for Administrative Search and
Seizure Warrant" provided no indicia of the Informant's reliability. She
further complains that the search warrant affidavit contains no indication
that Stockman corroborated the Informant's complaint. 12 Stockman, on
the other hand, argues probable cause existed because she received
specific, credible information indicating that animals on Palmieri's
property were kept in a condition that jeopardized their health and
welfare, and because she corroborated the identity and residence of the
alleged wrongdoer.
In evaluating an issuing court's decision to issue a search
warrant, we do not conduct a de novo review; instead, we consider whether
the evidence, taken together, demonstrated a substantial basis for the
issuing court's probable cause determination. Keesee v. State, 110 Nev.
997, 1002, 879 P.2d 63, 67 (1994); see also West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v.
Donovan, 689 F.2d 950, 959 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that for both
administrative and criminal search warrants, appellate courts apply the
same standard of review). And we are mindful that "[a] grudging or
negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to
discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial
officer before acting." United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965).
Nevertheless, we review a district court's legal conclusions regarding a
12 Wehave considered Palmieri's remaining arguments with regard
to whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and, for
the reasons discussed below, we conclude that under the totality of the
circumstances, the search warrant was supported by administrative
probable cause.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
21
(0) 19475
search's constitutionality de novo. State v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. „ 312
P.3d 467, 469 (2013).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article 1, Section 18 of the Nevada Constitution prohibit unreasonable
searches and seizures. Probable cause is the standard by which a search's
reasonableness is tested, and the type of probable cause necessary to
support a search warrant differs depending on the objective of the
search. 13 See Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320 (1978); Camara
v. Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 (1967). As relevant to this case, criminal
search warrants require a stronger showing of probable cause, whereas
administrative search warrants generally are supportable by a lesser
showing of probable cause. E.g., Marshall, 436 U.S. at 320 (holding that
"[p]robable cause in the criminal law sense is not required" to support an
administrative search warrant); see also Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S.
287 (1984) (discussing administrative probable cause in the context of a
search of a private residence).
The search warrant here is entitled "Administrative Search
and Seizure Warrant," but the title affixed to a search warrant is not
13 We are cognizant that a warrant or probable cause is not the sole
measure of reasonableness where such requirements would undermine the
governmental purpose underlying the search. E.Z. v. Coler, 603 F. Supp.
1546, 1558 (N.D. Ill. 1985), affd sub nom. Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893
(7th Cir. 1986). For example, in child welfare law, it has been recognized
that the fastest way to verify an allegation of abuse or neglect is to access
the home and observe the child, and that to require officials to corroborate
allegations through independent sources prior to executing a search
warrant may not only be impractical, but may unnecessarily delay
examination of a child's situation, possibly resulting in harm or death to
the child. Id. at 1558-59.
COURT OF APPEAl S
OF
NEVADA
22
(0) 19470
determinative of the legal standard by which its reasonableness is
assessed. See Clifford, 464 U.S. at 294 (providing that the objective of the
search determines whether an administrative or a criminal warrant is
required). As a preliminary matter, therefore, we consider whether the
search warrant in the present case is properly classified as an
administrative or a criminal search warrant.' 4
Generally, an administrative warrant is a warrant issued by a
judge authorizing an administrative agency to conduct a search "to
determine whether physical conditions exist which do not comply with
minimum standards prescribed in local regulatory ordinances." See
Camara, 387 U.S. at 530 (discussing administrative searches in the
14 Clark County did not argue before the district court that the
search warrant was supported by administrative probable cause, and on
appeal, it did not raise the issue in its opening or reply briefs. As a
general rule, issues not raised before the district court or in the appellant's
opening brief on appeal are deemed waived. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v.
Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in the
trial court, unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to
have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."); see also Powell
v. Liberty Mitt. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3
(2011) (explaining that issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived).
But this court has discretion to consider issues of constitutional dimension
sua sponte notwithstanding the parties' failure to raise such issues before
the district court or on appeal. See Desert Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v.
Chrysler Corp., 95 Nev. 640, 643-44, 600 P.2d 1189, 1191 (1979) (providing
that an appellate court may raise constitutional issues sua sponte on
appeal).
During oral argument, this court raised the issue of administrative
probable cause and permitted the parties an opportunity to discuss that
issue. Because the issue of whether administrative probable cause
supported the search warrant presents an important constitutional
question, we have determined to address it sua sponte. See id.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
23
(0) 1947B .0
context of a constitutional challenge to a warrantless administrative
search); see also Administrative Warrant, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014) ("A warrant issued by a judge at the request of an administrative
agency that seeks to conduct an administrative search "), and
Administrative Search, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("The
inspection of a facility by one or more officials of an agency with
jurisdiction over the facility's fire, health, or safety standards."). Unlike a
criminal search warrant that authorizes a search for evidence of criminal
conduct, an administrative search warrant merely authorizes a routine
inspection for regulatory compliance. See Camara, 387 U.S. at 530.
Because an administrative search warrant only authorizes "a routine
inspection of the physical condition of private property," an inspection
pursuant to such a warrant "is a less hostile intrusion than the typical
policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime." Id.
Where a warrant is required to conduct a search, the objective
of the search determines whether an administrative or a criminal warrant
is required. Clifford, 464 U.S. at 294. If the primary objective of a search
is to gather evidence of criminal conduct, then a criminal search warrant
is required. Id. On the other hand, an administrative search warrant is
required where the primary objective of the search is to ascertain
compliance with the minimum standards set forth in regulatory
ordinances. See id.; see also Camara, 387 U.S. at 530. The United States
Supreme Court, however, has acknowledged that, notwithstanding the
underlying objective of an administrative search warrant, discovery of a
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
24
(0) -(941R
regulatory violation during an administrative search may lead to criminal
penalties.th Specifically, the Supreme Court has observed:
Like most regulatory laws, fire, health, and
housing codes are enforced by criminal processes.
In some cities, discovery of a violation by the
inspector leads to a criminal complaint. Even in
cities where discovery of a violation produces only
an administrative compliance order, refusal to
comply is a criminal offense, and the fact of
compliance is verified by a second inspection,
again without a warrant. Finally, as this case
demonstrates, refusal to permit an inspection is
itself a crime, punishable by fine or even by jail
sentence.
Camara, 387 U.S. at 531 (footnotes omitted); see also Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
v. Grant, 954 P.2d 695, 701 (Kan. 1998) (concluding that a potential
"criminal penalt[y] is not a constitutional obstacle to obtaining an
administrative search warrant for routine inspections").
Title 10 of the Clark County Code governs the care and control
of animals in Clark County. As relevant to this appeal, Title 10 sets forth
standards to protect the health and welfare of animals in Clark County—
for example, it includes numerous provisions prohibiting various forms of
animal cruelty. Clark County Code §§ 10.32.010-10.32.250. To ensure
compliance with the regulatory framework, Title 10 authorizes searches of
'5During a valid administrative search, authorities may seize
evidence of criminal conduct in plain view. Clifford, 464 U.S. at 294.
Authorities may not use that evidence as a justification to expand the
scope of the• initial administrative search, but they may use evidence
seized under the plain-view doctrine to obtain a criminal search warrant.
Id.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
25
(0 ) 194 Th e
private property. Specifically, Clark County Code § 10.24.060 provides as
follows:
The animal control officer and any police officer in
the county while on duty, for just cause, shall have
the right to enter upon private property or public
property in the county in order to examine or
capture any animal thereon or therein; provided,
however, that no such officer or employee shall
have the right to enter a house or structure which
is in use as a residence without having first
secured a search warrant.
And Clark County Code § 10.40.040(b) provides that persons who violate
Title 10 are subject to civil or criminal penalties.
In the present case, Stockman obtained a warrant to search
Palmieri's residence, as authorized by Clark County Code § 10.24.060.
The warrant was entitled "Administrative Search and Seizure Warrant."
Consistent with its title, the search warrant did not authorize a search of
Palmieri's private property to uncover evidence of criminal conduct, but
rather, instructed officers to ascertain the condition of the animals on
Palmieri's property. Specifically, the search warrant instructed officers to
determine whether the animals on Palmieri's property were unhealthy,
held in violation of Clark County Code Title 10, or kept in a cruel
condition. And if officers determined that any animals on Palmieri's
property were unhealthy or kept in a cruel condition, the search warrant
authorized the officers to seize and hold such animals until their release
was ordered by the district court or until Palmieri complied with
conditions set forth by the officers. If determined necessary by a
veterinarian, the search warrant also provided for the immediate
euthanasia of any animals seized.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
26
(0) 19478 e
Although a person who commits animal cruelty or otherwise
violates Clark County Code Title 10 may be subject to criminal penalties,
see NRS 574.100, the primary objective of the search of Palmieri's
property, as demonstrated by the warrant authorizing the search, was to
protect the health and welfare of Palmieri's animals. As the primary
objective of the search warrant in the present case was to protect the
health and welfare of animals on Palmieri's property, we conclude the
search warrant constituted an administrative search warrant. And given
our conclusion that the search warrant constituted an administrative
search warrant, we next consider whether probable cause existed to
support an administrative search warrant.
The probable cause requirement as applied to administrative
search warrants was first discussed by the United States Supreme Court
in Camara. There, the Court noted that where an administrative search
is undertaken pursuant to a neutral inspection scheme, the heightened
showing of probable cause required for a criminal search is impractical
and unnecessary because many violations could not be corroborated
absent a search and because the privacy invasion associated with an
administrative search is limited. Camara, 387 U.S. at 537.
Since Camara, the Supreme Court has determined that
probable cause to support an administrative search warrant may be based
either on a neutral inspection scheme or on specific evidence of a violation.
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320 (1978). And, interpreting
Marshall, lower courts have held that, even where an administrative
search arises from specific evidence of a violation, rather than as part of a
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
27
(0) 19473
neutral inspection scheme, traditional criminal probable cause is not
required. 16
For example, in Commonwealth v. DeLuca, the court upheld
an administrative search warrant allowing officials to search a home for
code violations regarding the home's condition and habitability. 6 Pa. D.
& C. 5th 306, 324-25 (Pa. Ct. C.P., Del. Cnty. 2008). There, probable cause
sufficient to support the warrant existed based upon the specific
allegations regarding the property's condition, the property's history of
similar complaints, and officials' observations of trash and graffiti outside
and in the home. Id. at 310, 326. The court observed "that an
administrative search warrant does not require as high a level of probable
cause as a criminal search warrant." Id. at 323. It further noted the
search was driven by public health and welfare considerations, and the
defendants' invasion of privacy was negligible when balanced with the
city's need to inspect the property. Id. at 325-26.
Although an administrative search warrant based on specific
evidence of a violation does not require criminal probable cause, that
proposition does not provide guidance as to the quantum of specific
evidence necessary to establish administrative probable cause. In West
Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit considered the showing necessary to establish
administrative probable cause. 689 F.2d 950, 957-58 (11th Cir. 1982).
16See,e.g., In re Establishment Inspection of Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.
Co., 589 F.2d 1335, 1339 (7th Cir. 1979); In re Alameda Cnty. Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 537-801-2-4 St 537-850-9, 672 F. Supp. 1278, 1287 (N.D. Cal.
1987); Pieper v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 94, 97-98 (D. Minn. 1978),
affd 604 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir. 1979); In re Inspection of Titan Tire, 637
N.W.2d 115, 123 (Iowa 2001).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
28
194113
There, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that even though a lesser showing of
probable cause is required for an administrative search warrant given the
limited intrusion associated with an administrative search, the
administrative search warrant must still satisfy the Fourth Amendment's
basic purpose, "which is 'to safeguard the privacy and security of
individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials." Id. at
958 (quoting Marshall, 436 U.S. at 312).
To satisfy that requirement, the Eleventh Circuit observed
that an administrative search must not subject individuals "to the
unbridled discretion of 'executive and administrative officers, particularly
those in the field, as to when to search and whom to search." Id. (quoting
Marshall, 436 U.S. at 323). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that
administrative probable cause may be found where "the proposed
inspection is based upon a reasonable belief that a violation has been or is
being committed" and that the belief is supported "by a showing of specific
evidence sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of a violation." Id.
We agree with the Eleventh Circuit's rationale in Donovan and conclude
that to establish administrative probable cause based on evidence of a
specific violation, a search warrant affidavit must show specific evidence
sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of a violation.
To determine whether reasonable suspicion exists, courts look
to the totality of the circumstances. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330-
31 (1990) (applying the totality of the circumstances test to determine
whether an anonymous informant's tip established reasonable suspicion to
justify an investigatory stop); see also State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170,
1173-74 (2006) (explaining that to assess whether an investigatory stop
was supported by reasonable suspicion, courts look to the totality of the
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
29
(0) 19470
circumstances). In considering the totality of the circumstances, we
analyze both the "content of information possessed by police and its degree
of reliability." White, 496 U.S. at 330 (comparing quanta of proof required
for reasonable suspicion and probable cause analyses). But, in comparison
to criminal probable cause, reasonable suspicion is a less demanding
standard because it does not require information possessing the same
quality or content as criminal probable cause, and because it can be
established with information that is less reliable than that required to
demonstrate criminal probable cause. Id.
In the present case, we consider whether the Informant's tip,
as corroborated, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to support
reasonable suspicion for a search warrant for Palmieri's residence. See
Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269 (1960) (concluding hearsay may
support a search warrant "so long as a substantial basis for crediting the
hearsay is presented"), overruled on other grounds by United States v.
Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980). Because the totality of the circumstances
approach is concerned with the quantity and quality of information, a tip
that has a relatively high degree of reliability will require less
corroborating information to establish the requisite quantum of
administrative probable cause. See White, 496 U.S at 330. In considering
the reliability of an informant's tip, numerous federal and state courts
have determined that a tip from an identified citizen informant is
presumably reliable because an identified citizen that witnesses and
reports a crime has no apparent motive to falsify information. 17
17See Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 216 (2d Cr. 2012)
(reasoning that "information provided by an identified bystander with no
apparent motive to falsify has a peculiar likelihood of accuracy, and ... an
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
30
(0) 1947B
When categorizing infoi niants as anonymous or identified,
courts are flexible in assessing the type and amount of information
necessary to identify an informant. See City of Maumee v. Weisner, 720
N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ohio 1999) (considering whether an identified
informant's tip established reasonable suspicion). For example, in
Weisner, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether an informant who
provided a tip via telephone would be considered identified for the purpose
of assessing the informant's credibility. Id. at 509, 513. There, the
informant called 9-1-1 to report a suspected drunk driver. Id. at 509.
During the call, the informant provided the dispatcher with his name and
...continued
identified citizen informant is presumed to be reliable") (quoting Panetta
v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388, 395 (2d Cir. 2006)); Ewing ix City of Stockton,
588 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding an identified witness "was
a citizen witness, not an informant, and such witnesses are generally
presumed reliable"); United States v. Martinelli, 454 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th
Cir. 2006) (observing that "ifihe courts have traditionally viewed
information drawn from an ordinary witness or crime victim with
considerably less skepticism than information derived from anonymous
sources"); Edwards v. Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 294 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting
that an identifiable "citizen informant is inherently more reliable than the
usual police informants who are often mired in some criminal activity
themselves"); United States v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 689 (6th Cir.
1994) (holding that a citizen informant's tip was presumptively reliable
because the citizen informant was an identified eyewitness to the alleged
crime); Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441, 1449 (10th Cir. 1985)
(noting "the skepticism and careful scrutiny usually found in cases
involving informants, sometimes anonymous, from the criminal milieu, is
appropriately relaxed if the informant is an identified victim or ordinary
citizen witness"); United States v. Philips, 727 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir.
1984) (concluding that "[wthen information is received from an identified
bystander or victim-eyewitness to a crime, . . . reliability need not be
established in the officer's affidavit.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
31
(0) 19478 ea
cellular and home telephone numbers, and he remained on the telephone
with the dispatcher to assist the responding officer in locating the
suspected drunk driver. Id. Based on those facts, the Weisner court
specifically rejected the suspected drunk driver's contention that the
informant was anonymous because the informant may have fabricated his
identity. Id. at 514. Instead, the court concluded that the informant was
sufficiently identified to warrant recognizing the informant's tip as more
reliable than that of an anonymous informant, noting that it was
undisputed that the informant provided his name and cellular and home
telephone numbers. Id. The Weisner court also reasoned that, because
the informant maintained continuous contact with the dispatcher during
the reported incident, he considered face-to-face contact a possibility and
was unlikely to falsify a report given the potential repercussions. Id.
And Weisner is not the only case in which courts have been
flexible with regard to the type and amount of information necessary to
categorize an informant as identified. In United States v. Pasquarille, 20
F.3d 682, 683, 687 (6th Cir. 1994), the court categorized an informant as
an identified citizen informant where the informant did not provide his
name, but rather identified himself as a transporter of prisoners.
Similarly, in Edwards v. Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 294 (7th Cir. 1995), the
court treated an unnamed informant as an identified citizen informant
where the police were aware the informant was a bus driver.
Here, Palmieri argues the Informant was anonymous and the
information was, therefore, unreliable. We disagree. As reported to the
issuing judge, the Informant initially contacted Richard Molinari, an
animal control supervisor with the City of Las Vegas, to file a complaint
and provided the name Kaitlyn Nichols. After Molinari forwarded the
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
32
(0) I947B
complaint to Clark County Animal Control, Stockman spoke with the
Informant by phone, and the Informant again provided the name Kaitlyn
Nichols. 18 Based on the sequence of events reported by Stockman, which
Palmieri does not dispute, the issuing judge could have inferred that the
Informant provided a telephone number at which Clark County Animal
Control could reach the Informant. And, similar to Weisner, the issuing
judge could have inferred that the Informant's continued participation in
the reporting process suggested that the Informant considered the
possibility of face-to-face contact and was unlikely to fabricate a report
given the potential consequences. Arguably, the information the
Informant provided could have subjected the Informant to prosecution for
perjury, a category D felony under NRS 199.130, for "caus [in& to be made,
executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, . . for the purpose of
securing a warrant for the searching of the premises. . . of any other
person." As such, the Informant provided Stockman the type and amount
of information needed to identify the Informant, and Stockman provided
that information to the issuing judge in the search warrant affidavit.
We are mindful, of course, of the requirement that this court
must consider "the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from
it. . . in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Wood v. Safeway,
Inc. , 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Accordingly, we
assume that the Informant, in identifying herself as Kaitlyn Nichols,
provided Stockman a false name. But the reasonableness of a search
Notably, Palmieri acknowledged that she believes that Stockman
l8
received the tip from an informant who identified herself as Kaitlyn
Nichols. And Palmieri acknowledged that the signature on Stockman's
complaint appeared to be Kaitlyn Nichols' signature.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
33
(0) 19475 .4SF40
warrant is not assessed based on information acquired subsequent to a
search, but rather, must be considered based on information provided to
the magistrate in the search warrant affidavit. Maryland v. Garrison, 480
U.S. 79, 85 (1987). As discussed above, Palmieri did not establish a
genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether Stockman knew or
should have known that the Informant provided a false identity. As
known at the time of issuance of the search warrant, the Informant was
identified, and, therefore, we conclude her tip, at the time, was entitled to
a presumption of reliability.
Our categorization of the Informant as an identified citizen
informant is not the only basis for concluding that her tip, as perceived by
Stockman and the issuing judge, demonstrated significant indicia of
reliability. Where an informant's tip is based on personal knowledge, and
includes an explicit, detailed description of alleged criminal activity, the
informant's tip is entitled to greater weight than the weight accorded to a
secondhand description. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 234 (1983). In the
present case, the Informant indicated that she observed violations of the
Clark County Code in Palmieri's residence firsthand, and she provided a
detailed description of those violations, reporting that she saw several
animals in Palmieri's house and garage, that the animals looked
unhealthy and thin and appeared to have matted fur and fecal matter all
over them, and that Palmieri keeps animals at her house that are too sick
or young to be housed at her pet store. 19 Because the Informant's tip was
detailed and based on firsthand observation and because the Informant's
19 We note that Palmieri does not argue that Stockman did not
accurately describe the substance of the Informant's report in the search
warrant affidavit.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
34
(0) 194Th ce
reported relationship to Palmieri provided an objectively reasonable
explanation for the Informant's opportunity to observe those violations, we
conclude that the basis of the Informant's knowledge provides additional
support for the Informant's presumed reliability. Moreover, the
Informant's allegations did not relate to an isolated incident, but rather, to
unhealthy conditions that develop over a lengthy period of time. Thus, the
Informant's allegations provided reason to believe that there was an
ongoing violation of Clark County's standards for the health and welfare of
animals in Palmieri's residence.
And Stockman did not merely rely on the Informant's
complaint; she also corroborated the Informant's report by verifying that
Palmieri owned the reported residence and reviewing records that
revealed Clark County Animal Control had previously received health and
welfare complaints regarding Palmieri's residence and businesses.
Neither before the district court nor before this court has Palmieri
suggested that Stockman did not actually verify this information, which
Stockman stated she verified in the search warrant affidavit.
Given the foregoing, we conclude that the Informant's specific,
detailed allegations regarding ongoing animal cruelty in Palmieri's
residence, combined with the Informant's reliability and basis of
knowledge and the corroborating information gathered by Stockman were
sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Palmieri was
endangering the health and welfare of animals on her property. 2° We
20 The actual scope of the search and the results of the search do not
affect our probable cause determination, Maryland u. Garrison, 480 U.S.
79, 85 (1987) ("The validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis
of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
35
(0) 19475 etr,
reiterate that our review of the issuing court's probable cause
determination is not de novo, but rather, is limited to an evaluation of
whether the evidence as a whole, including the Informant's presumed
reliability, the Informant's personal knowledge and detailed description of
violations, and the corroborating information provided by Stockman,
...continued
to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate."). However, we note that Stockman
and the accompanying animal control officer limited the scope of their
search as required by the administrative search warrant, and that the
search revealed that (1) Palmieri kept 29 dogs in her house and garage,
(2) two dogs appeared sickly, (3) Palmieri could not provide proof that the
dogs received rabies vaccinations, and (4) Palmieri did not have a permit
to possess intact dogs.
We are cognizant that the search was an unpleasant experience for
Palmieri. But the search did not exceed the limited scope of the
administrative search warrant. Moreover, it only took the officers one to
one-and-a-half hours to search Palmieri's residence, to observe 29 dogs, to
request that Palmieri provide the relevant paperwork, and to remove 7
dogs from Palmieri's residence. Although Palmieri was not detained based
on suspicion of criminal behavior, we note that the 20 to 30 minute period
during which Palmieri was removed from her residence, but not
restrained, was well within the one-hour limit for temporary detentions.
See NRS 171.123(4) ("A person must not be detained longer than is
reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event
longer than 60 minutes.").
We also note that the manner of the search in the present case did
not approach the intrusiveness of the methods frequently used for
searches related to criminal conduct. See, e.g., Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S.
93, 95-96, 100, 102 (2005) (upholding a search of a residence where a
Special Weapons and Tactics team was used to secure a residence that
was subject to a search warrant, and the inhabitants of the residence were
handcuffed and detained in a garage for two to three hours during the
ensuing search). In perspective, the invasion of Palmieri's privacy interest
was low compared to the regulatory need to ensure code compliance and
protect the health and welfare of the many dogs on Palmieri's property.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
36
(0) 1947B en
provided a substantial basis to conclude administrative probable cause
existed to search Palmieri's residence. Keesee v. State, 110 Nev. 997, 1002,
879 P.2d 63, 67 (1994). Our holding today simply recognizes that under
these facts, the totality of the circumstances supported a finding of
administrative probable cause to believe there was evidence in Palmieri's
residence of animal cruelty or a violation of Clark County's codes for the
health and welfare of animals. 21 See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330-
2 'The concurrence questions whether the Nevada Supreme Court's
decision in Owens v. City of North Las Vegas, 85 Nev. 105, 450 P.2d 784
(1969), imposed a requirement that officers must first seek permission to
enter a property before obtaining an administrative search warrant. In
Owens, the supreme court relied on the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), to resolve a
challenge to the validity of an administrative search warrant. There, the
Owens Court suggested that, as a practical matter, officers should seek
permission to inspect a property before turning to the warrant process.
But, the language used by the Owens Court closely follows the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Camara. Compare Owens, 85 Nev. at
111, 450 P.2d at 787-88 ("As a practical matter, in view of the Fourth
Amendment's requirement that a warrant describe the property to be
searched, warrants should normally be sought only after the entry has
been refused, absent some compelling reason for securing immediate
entry."), with Camara, 387 U.S. at 539-40 ("[A]s a practical matter and in
light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant specify the
property to be searched, it seems likely that warrants should normally be
sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen
complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate
entry."). We are not aware of any legal authority interpreting Camara to
require that an officer must request permission to enter a property before
seeking a search warrant, cf. Ciarlone v. City of Reading, 489 F. App'x 567,
571-72 (3d Cir. 2012) (rejecting an argument that, under Camara, an
opportunity to consent must be provided before officers may seek a search
warrant), and we do not read Owens, which relied on Camara, to impose
such a requirement in Nevada.
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
37
(0) I 9478 ,tiser•
31 (1990); see also West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950, 958
(11th Cir. 1982) (providing that administrative probable cause may be
established with evidence sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of a
violation). Consequently, Palmieri failed to demonstrate a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether Stockman violated her clearly established
constitutional rights. 22 See Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. , 136 S. Ct. 305,
308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil
liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established
...continued
Moreover, even if Owens imposed such a requirement, Stockman
specifically averred in the search warrant affidavit that, during a prior
animal-welfare investigation, Palmieri refused to consent to a search of
her residence and demanded that a Clark County Animal Control officer
leave her property until such time as he obtained a search warrant. Based
on that information, the issuing judge could have reasonably concluded
that efforts to procure a consensual search of Palmieri's residence would
have been fruitless. And, although she did not elaborate further in her
search warrant affidavit, we note that Stockman later testified in her
deposition that she sought a search warrant after receiving the
Informant's complaint due to Palmieri's previous refusal to consent to a
search of her residence.
22Notwithstanding our conclusion, we are aware that Stockman
could have done more to corroborate the information provided by the
Informant—for example, Stockman could have observed Palmieri's
residence in person and listened for barking dogs. Simply stated,
Stockman's search warrant affidavit does not evince a model of
investigative work. That Stockman could have done more, however, does
not necessarily mean that the search warrant was invalid. While this is a
close case, we are satisfied that, under the facts of this case,
administrative probable cause existed to search Palmieri's residence for
evidence of animal cruelty or a violation of Clark County's codes for the
health and welfare of animals.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
38
(0) 19478 e>
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
CONCLUSION
Palmieri failed to make a substantial showing that Stockman
knowingly and intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for the truth,
included a false statement in the administrative search warrant affidavit,
and Palmieri failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with
regard to whether the administrative search warrant was supported by
probable cause to search Palmieri's residence. 23 Because Palmieri failed to
establish that Stockman violated her constitutional rights, Stockman is
entitled to qualified immunity, see Butler, 123 Nev. at 458-59, 168 P.3d
1061-62, and, therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by
granting Stockman's summary judgment on Palmieri's § 1983 claim. And,
as previously discussed, absent a violation of Palmieri's constitutional
rights by Stockman, Palmieri's remaining arguments regarding her
Monell claim and her state law tort claims lack merit. Accordingly, we
231n reviewing Stockman's motion for summary judgment, the
district court concluded that criminal probable cause supported the
search warrant for Palmieri's residence. Because we conclude that
administrative probable cause supported the administrative search
warrant in the present case, we express no opinion as to whether criminal
probable cause existed. But we affirm the district court because it reached
the correct result, albeit under the wrong standard. See Sengel v. JUT,
116 Nev. 565, 570, 2 P.3d 258, 261 (2000) (explaining that an appellate
court will affirm a district court's decision if the district court reached the
correct result, but for the wrong reason.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
39
(0) 1947B ,aeo
affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment in its
entirety.
J.
I concur:
, C.J.
Gibbons
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
40
194713 vacego
TAO, J., concurring:
Although based upon one of the shortest federal statutes on
the books (or maybe because of it), civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 can be complex beasts, requiring courts to sort through a mixture of
substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, and civil procedure, along
with the doctrine of qualified immunity, which hangs over everything and
requires examination before a court can even reach the merits of a claim.
See Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (question of whether
qualified immunity bars § 1983 claim should normally be resolved early in
the case).
In a case like this, the doctrine of qualified immunity
implicates two related but different questions: whether the search was
valid, and whether the executing officer reasonably believed that it was
valid. If the answer to both of those inquiries is yes, then as a matter of
law the officer's actions are protected by qualified immunity. If the
answer to both of those inquiries is no, then as a matter of law the officer's
actions are not. In some cases, the answers to those two questions may
diverge: a search can be invalid, yet the searching officer may have
reasonably believed it to be valid and may therefore nonetheless be
immune from civil liability.
The majority concludes both that the warrant was valid and
also that Officer Stockman reasonably believed it to be valid. I write
separately because I believe that a more serious and unsettled question
exists regarding the validity of the administrative warrant in this case
than the majority acknowledges, and therefore this appeal just might fall
into the third category of cases rather than the first. However, I concur
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947R e
with the outcome of this appeal because, whether the warrant was valid or
not, Judy Palmieri did not meet her burden of demonstrating that Officer
Stockman acted unreasonably or recklessly enough to waive the shield of
qualified immunity to which she is otherwise entitled as a law
enforcement officer performing a discretionary function.
The first step that we must take to resolve this appeal is to
identify the governing law. The majority analyzes the search warrant in
this case primarily by relying upon federal caselaw, with a few state cases
thrown in for good measure.'
At first blush, this seems to make some sense; Nevada
generally follows federal law on most search-and-seizure questions. State
v. Lloyd, 129 Nev. , 312 P.3d 467, 471 (2013). Furthermore, as a
general matter, it is axiomatic that federal law governs federal claims,
even those filed in state courts; after all, that is what the Supremacy
Clause says. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 ("[T]he Laws of the United
States. . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a
1 Forexample, the majority discusses Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 6
Pa. D. & C. 5th 306, 324-25 (Pa. Ct. C.P., Del. Cnty. 2008). But
Pennsylvania does not follow federal search-and-seizure law on many
issues, choosing instead to implement its own version of the exclusionary
rule. Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 896-99 (Pa. 1991) ("The
history of Article I, Section 8 [of the Pennsylvania Constitution] thus
indicates that the purpose underlying the exclusionary rule in this
Commonwealth is quite distinct from the purpose underlying the
exclusionary rule under the 4th Amendment ... .").
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 19475
federal statute, so federal law follows everywhere a § 1983 claim is filed;
thus it is entirely unnecessary for us to "adopt" any of it to resolve a
§ 1983 action. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 358, 375 (1990) ("State
courts as well as federal courts have jurisdiction over § 1983 cases" but
"the elements of, and the defenses to, a federal cause of action are defined
by federal law"). Indeed, state courts cannot constitutionally refuse to
apply federal law to § 1983 claims even when filed in a state court. Id. at
367-371 ("The Supremacy Clause makes [federal] laws 'the supreme Law
of the Land,' and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to
enforce that law... . . The Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to
dissociate themselves from federal law [in resolving § 1983 claims] ") See
Richard v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 960 So. 2d 953, 961 (La.
Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he same body of federal law governs § 1983 actions in
state and federal courts ... ."); Walker v. Maruffi, 737 P.2d 544, 547 (N.M.
Ct. App. 1987) (in § 1983 actions, "[wie are bound by decisions of the
United States Supreme Court affecting federal law"); United States ex rel.
Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied,
402 U.S. 983 (1971) ("The Supreme Court of the United States has
appellate jurisdiction over federal questions arising either in state or
federal proceedings, and by reason of the supremacy clause the decisions
of that court on national law have binding effect on all lower courts
whether state or federal."). See generally Sheldon H. Nahmod, Civil
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 3
NEVADA
(0) 194M e
Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation § 4.03, at 275 (3d ed. 1991) (federal
law governs § 1983 actions filed in state court). 2
2 The problem is that once we get below the level of greatest
generality, the phrase "federal law" is less clear than it appears because
federal cases are not always as monolithic, uniform, or even consistent as
perhaps they should be. Frequently the real issue boils down to which
competing version of federal law should be applied.
For example, when a search warrant affidavit contains a false
statement, the warrant might still be valid if it would have issued anyway
had the falsity not been included. Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d
864, 871 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1221 (1992) (citing Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). But in the context of
§ 1983, the federal circuits disagree on whether this question is answered
by the court as a matter of law, or by the jury as a matter of fact. Some
circuits hold that it is either a mixed question of fact and law, or a pure
question of fact reserved for the jury. See Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569,
574 (2d Cir. 1994); see Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275-76 (6th Cir.
1989). Other circuits, including the Ninth, have held that it is a question
of law. Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 789 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). Whether a
question is characterized as one of fact or law quite obviously has a real
bearing on whether, and when, a claim can or cannot be properly be
resolved on summary judgment, as Palmieri's claim was below.
Here, the majority chooses to follow the Ninth Circuit's approach in
Hervey. In isolation, I do not disagree with this; Ninth Circuit decisions
are frequently considered to be persuasive, though not binding, authority
by the Nevada Supreme Court. See Blanton v. N. Las Vegas Mun. Court,
103 Nev. 623, 633, 748 P.2d 494, 500 (1987), aff'd sub nom. Blanton v. City
of N. Las Vegas, Nev., 489 U.S. 538 (1989). But later in the opinion, the
majority also chooses to follow the Eleventh Circuit's approach in West
Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950, 957-58 (11th Cir. 1982), on
the standards for a proper "administrative search." But the Eleventh
Circuit does not appear to fully agree with the Ninth Circuit on how the
doctrine of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action should be evaluated on
summary judgment. See Branch v. Tunnell, 937 F.2d 1382, 1385-86 (9th
Cir. 1991), disagreeing with Kenyatta v. Moore, 744 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.
1984) (the Eleventh Circuit was split off of the Fifth Circuit, and Fifth
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 4
NEVADA
(0) 9478 e
However, in this particular case it is not clear that the
majority has applied the correct body of law because a state is free to
"impose higher standards on searches and seizures than required by the
Federal Constitution if it chooses to do so," Cooper v. California, 386 U.S.
58, 62 (1967), and Nevada may have done just that in connection with
administrative searches in a case that the majority overlooks.
In Owens v. City of North Las Vegas, 85 Nev. 105, 450 P.2d
784 (1969), the Nevada Supreme Court appears to have imposed a
requirement upon administrative search warrants that does not exist in
some other jurisdictions: administrative warrants "should normally be
sought only after the entry has been refused, absent some compelling
reason for securing immediate entry." 3 Id. at 111, 450 P.2d at 788. The
court noted:
...continued
Circuit precedent from that time frame is binding upon the Eleventh
unless overruled or modified, see Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d
1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). See also United States v.
Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009) ("This Court has not,
however, stated a precise standard of review for a district court's denial of
a Franks hearing], and] we need not determine which standard of review
applies today."). So, the majority seems to suggest that we follow the
Eleventh Circuit's law when it comes to the substance of an
administrative warrant, but we follow the law of the Ninth Circuit when it
comes to whether we analyze certain aspects of that substance on
summary judgment as questions of law or fact. I am not sure these are
consistent, but I suppose any potential incongruity must be sorted out in
future cases.
3 Asthe majority notes in footnote 21, this language somewhat
echoes language from the U.S. Supreme Court in Camara v. Municipal
Court, 387 U.S. 523, 539-40 (1967). But notably, Camara stated that an
administrative warrant could issue without a prior "refusal of entry" when
the warrant was based upon a "citizen complaint" or there is "other
continued on next page...
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 5
NEVADA
(0) 1947B
Where considerations of health and safety are
involved, the facts that would justify an inference
of "probable cause" to make an inspection are
different from those that would justify an
inference when a criminal investigation has been
undertaken. Experience may show the need for
periodic inspections of certain facilities without a
further showing of cause. . . that substandard
conditions dangerous to the public are being
maintained. The passage of a certain period
without inspection might of itself be sufficient in a
given situation to justify the issuance of a
warrant. The test of "probable cause" required by
the Fourth Amendment can take into account the
nature of the search that is being sought. There
can be no ready test for determining
reasonableness other than by balancing the need
to search against the invasion which the search
entails.
... We appreciate that in most routine inspections
there is no great urgency to inspect at a certain
time on a given day. Likewise, most citizens will
permit routine inspections without a warrant. As
a practical matter, in view of the Fourth
Amendment's requirement that a warrant
...continued
satisfactory reason." The Nevada Supreme Court specifically omitted this
language from Owens, instead only permitting an exception where there is
a "compelling reason" for immediate entry regardless of whether the
complaint came from a citizen or not, language that does not appear in
Camara and is obviously much narrower. Therefore, I disagree that
Owens only repeats and adds nothing to Camara when it plainly, and we
must assume intentionally, uses entirely different language.
Furthermore, Owens has been good law since 1969, and Respondent Clark
County is well aware of it, at least at an institutional level, having cited it
as authority in its Answering Brief in Ransdell v. Clark County, No.
48592, 2007 WL 6528461 (Nev. Aug. 16, 2007).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 6
NEVADA
(0) 1947B 411111N,
describe the property to be searched, warrants
should normally be sought only after the entry has
been refused, absent some compelling reason for
securing immediate entry.
Id. at 110-11, 450 P.2d at 787-88. The court affirmed the validity of the
administrative warrant in the case before it, observing that the warrant
request "grew out of Owens' refusal to permit the city building inspector to
enter his home to check for violations of the city building code." Id. at 106,
450 P.2d at 785.
In contrast, nothing like that happened before Palmieri's home
was searched. Officer Stockman made no effort to seek consensual entry
into Judy Palmieri's home at any time before seeking a warrant; according
to Stockman's own affidavit, she merely received a phone tip, performed a
computer search, and then submitted a warrant application for approval.
From what I can tell, this all happened within a matter of minutes, and
Officer Stockman never even bothered to visit the premises until she
arrived later with the signed warrant already in hand. Therefore, entry
was never requested or denied in this case before the warrant was sought
or obtained.
Furthermore, I can see no "compelling" reason in this case to
justify an immediate entry without such a request when the conditions of
Palmieri's dogs were unlikely to have changed during the time it might
have taken to procure a warrant after knocking on the door and asking for
permission first. Unlike drugs or other small contraband, dogs cannot be
flushed down the toilet or otherwise easily disposed of, and if it is true
that they were dangerously unhealthy when Stockman first knocked, they
likely would have been in the same condition shortly thereafter when she
returned with a warrant.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 7
NEVADA
(0) 1947B 0
Accordingly, the "refusal of entry" language of Owens has not
been complied with in this case. 4 The difficult question is whether that
alone renders the administrative warrant invalid; Owens does not quite
say that an administrative warrant sought without a prior refusalS of entry
is per se invalid for that reason alone. Rather, Owens emphasizes that the
touchstone for validity is the reasonableness of the warrant request under
the circumstances. 85 Nev. at 107-08, 450 P.2d at 785-86.
Fundamentally, there are three ways to read the "refusal of
entry" language contained in Owens: (1) as imposing an additional
requirement above and beyond those already required by the Fourth
Amendment that must be independently met in every case before an
administrative warrant may issue in Nevada; (2) as merely identifying one
consideration that a judge may take into account in determining whether
a warrant request is reasonable or not (i.e., observing that warrant
4The closest the majority comes to applying the Owens test to the
facts of this case is in its observation in footnote 3 that Palmieri previously
denied entry to another animal control officer, Jason Elff on another
occasion. But that was in 2006, four years before the search in this case
and in response to an entirely different complaint. The majority also notes
in footnote 21 that Officer Stockman later testified in deposition that she
believed requesting entry would be futile, but that assertion was not
included within the search warrant affidavit. The validity of a search
warrant must be assessed based only upon what the judge knew when the
warrant was signed, not on facts hidden from the judge or uncovered after
the warrant has already been obtained. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,
236 (1983) (when assessing the validity of a search warrant affidavit,
courts look only to the four corners of the affidavit itself to determine
whether, based upon the affidavit alone, the magistrate had a "substantial
basis" for authorizing the search at the time the request was made).
Therefore, Officer Stockman's later deposition testimony simply cannot be
considered in assessing whether the warrant was valid when issued.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 8
NEVADA
(0) 194713
requests made after entry has been refused are more likely to be deemed
reasonable than ones in which this has not happened); or (3) as pure obiter
dicta that adds nothing to the constitutional analysis.
If Owens is anything other than pure dicta, then as an
intermediate court we must follow and apply it faithfully, even if it might
seem incompatible with federal law or decisions from other states
addressing the same issue.
The principle of stare decisis is designed to
promote stability and certainty in the law. While
most often invoked to justify a court's refusal to
reconsider its own decisions, it applies a fortiori to
enjoin lower courts to follow the decision of a
higher court. This principle is so firmly
established in our jurisprudence that no lower
court would deliberately refuse to follow the
decision of a higher court. But cases come in all
shapes and varieties, and it is not always clear
whether a precedent applies to a situation in
which some of the facts are different from those in
the decided case. Here lower courts must
necessarily make judgments as to how far beyond
its particular facts the higher court precedent
extends.
Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 720 (1995) (Rehnquist, J.,
dissenting).
If Owens is read to impose an additional and independent
Nevada-specific requirement upon administrative warrants in order for
them to be validly issued, that requirement was not met here and the
warrant was invalid. If Owens is read to merely articulate one factor
relating to "reasonableness" that the court must consider, that factor was
not considered by the district court below and has not been considered by
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 9
NEVADA
(0) I 94711
the majority, and the warrant might or might not be valid. Either way,
the question is considerably more complicated than it might first appear.
Were the constitutionality of Officer Stockman's
administrative warrant the only question before us, then we would have to
"make judgments as to how far beyond its particular facts the higher court
precedent extends." Hubbard, 514 U.S. at 720. But the question before us
is not the per se validity of the warrant, but rather whether Officer
Stockman is entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983.
And, under the circumstances of this appeal, answering that question does
not require us to definitively resolve how Owens must be interpreted.
Indeed, and perhaps somewhat ironically, what is important for purposes
of resolving Officer Stockman's qualified immunity defense is the very lack
of clarity in Owens.
In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer can
conduct a defective search and yet still be cloaked with qualified immunity
from subsequent civil liability. A searching officer is entitled to qualified
immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was
lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information the
searching officers possessed." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641
(1987). The central question is whether someone in the officer's position
could reasonably but mistakenly conclude that his conduct complied with
the Fourth Amendment. Id.; see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206
(2001), overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
236 (2009); Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). This is the same
objective reasonableness standard applied under the "good faith" exception
to the exclusionary rule. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344 (1986);
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 10
NEVADA
(01 1.147B
see also Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 566 (2004) (Kennedy, J.,
dissenting).
Law enforcement officers lose their immunity if it is "obvious
that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant
should issue; but if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on
this issue, immunity should be recognized." Malley, 475 U.S. at 341; see
Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569, 575-76 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Whether or not the
Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement would have been satisfied
on these facts in the context of a motion to suppress . . . we conclude that
the defendants' qualified immunity shields them from liability [when] it
was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not
violate Fourth Amendment requirements." (citation omitted)).
Generally speaking, there are several types of mistakes that a
law enforcement official may make. The officer may make a mistake of
law, i.e., be unaware of existing law and how it should be applied. See
Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206. Alternatively, the officer may make a mistake of
fact, i.e., may misunderstand important facts about the search and assess
the legality of his conduct based on that misunderstanding. See, e.g.,
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). Or, the officer may misunderstand
elements of both the facts and the law. See Creighton, 483 U.S. at 641.
Qualified immunity jurisprudence applies regardless of whether the
officer's error was a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based
on mixed questions of law and fact. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507
(1978) (noting that qualified immunity covers "mere mistakes in
judgment, whether the mistake is one of fact or one of law"). Whatever
kind of mistake is involved, the ultimate question is whether the officer's
reliance upon the defect was reasonable.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 11
NEVADA
What we have in this case is a possible mistake of law; entry
into Palmieri's home was not refused pursuant to Owens before the
warrant was sought. But if a mistake occurred, it was not a violation of
"clearly established" law that should have been "obvious" to Officer
Stockman. As I have observed, Owens can be read in alternative ways,
one of which would invalidate the warrant and two of which might or
might not. Therefore, it cannot be said to have represented law so
established that every reasonable law enforcement officer should have
familiarized themselves with its contours before being put into the field
with the power to apply for administrative warrants. For that reason, I
agree that Officer Stockman cannot be said to have acted unreasonably
under the totality of the circumstances, and she has not forfeited the
shield of qualified immunity 5
°Furthermore, a defective search may still be considered valid so
long as the executing officer relied in objective "good faith" upon the
authority of the search warrant. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897,
920-21 (1984); Byars v. State, 130 Nev. , , 336 P.3d 939, 947 (2014)
(following Leon). Here, Officer Stockman submitted her search warrant
application to her supervisor, to the career prosecutors at the Clark
County District Attorney's Office, and finally to a district court judge, all
of whom approved the application notwithstanding its possible flaws.
Considering the vagueness of Owens, Officer Stockman acted reasonably
when she went through proper channels and sought, and received,
approval for her actions at every level from others in whom she was
entitled to place her trust. Under the circumstances of this case, the
district judge reviewed and signed the warrant, and there is no evidence
that Officer Stockman acted in a nefarious or underhanded way or had
any reason to doubt that the warrant was entirely valid once the ink on
the judge's signature was dry.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 12
NEVADA
(0) 1947B
Therefore, I agree with the majority's thorough and detailed
analysis of this appeal. Under the facts of this case, the meaning of Owens
is not central to our disposition and will have to be addressed another day.
Tao
COURT OF APPEALS
OF 13
NEVADA
(0) I 047E ea