Carr v. City of Redondo Beach

Ninth Circuit

Carr v. City of Redondo Beach

275 F. App'x 592

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2008

DocketNo. 06-56188

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 F. App'x 592 (Carr v. City of Redondo Beach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carr v. City of Redondo Beach, 275 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Firpo Carr sued the City of Redondo Beach, claiming that City police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights and committed various state law torts during the course of an investigatory stop. Carr appeals from the district court’s grant of the City’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Carr, we conclude that [594]*594there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to any of Carr’s claims. See United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). The stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion supported by the articulable facts provided by a citizen who reported that she thought that a man matching Carr’s description was burglarizing her neighbor. See Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). Nor was the length of the stop, approximately 20-25 minutes, constitutionally infirm, as it was limited to the time necessary to investigate the report and to determine that no crime had been committed. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2002).

Given the nature of the crime suspected, and the report from the neighbor of large, full pockets, it was reasonable for one officer to draw his gun (which he did not point at Carr) and for another to conduct a pat down search of Carr’s person to determine if he had a weapon. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The amount of force used to carry out the pat down was objectively reasonable. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir.2001).

There is also no genuine issue of material fact with respect to Carr’s claim under Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), because there was no constitutional violation. Carr’s state law tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, and false imprisonment fail for the same reason. Though Carr turned out to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing, there is no evidence of any unconstitutional motive or conduct by the police, just a reasonable investigation of the neighbor’s call.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Firpo Carr sued the City of Redondo Beach, claiming that City police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights and committed various state law torts during the course of an investigatory stop. Carr appeals from the district court’s grant of the City’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Carr, we conclude that [594]*594there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to any of Carr’s claims. See United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). The stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion supported by the articulable facts provided by a citizen who reported that she thought that a man matching Carr’s description was burglarizing her neighbor. See Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). Nor was the length of the stop, approximately 20-25 minutes, constitutionally infirm, as it was limited to the time necessary to investigate the report and to determine that no crime had been committed. See Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2002).

Given the nature of the crime suspected, and the report from the neighbor of large, full pockets, it was reasonable for one officer to draw his gun (which he did not point at Carr) and for another to conduct a pat down search of Carr’s person to determine if he had a weapon. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The amount of force used to carry out the pat down was objectively reasonable. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir.2001).

There is also no genuine issue of material fact with respect to Carr’s claim under Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), because there was no constitutional violation. Carr’s state law tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, and false imprisonment fail for the same reason. Though Carr turned out to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing, there is no evidence of any unconstitutional motive or conduct by the police, just a reasonable investigation of the neighbor’s call.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F. App'x 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-city-of-redondo-beach-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack