Erickson v. Knapp

C.D. California

Erickson v. Knapp

938 F. Supp. 581, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20838, 1990 WL 656120

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

DocketNo. SA CV 89-780 AHS(EEx)

StatusPublished

This text of 938 F. Supp. 581 (Erickson v. Knapp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erickson v. Knapp, 938 F. Supp. 581, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20838, 1990 WL 656120 (C.D. Cal. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

STOTLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication came on regularly for hearing before the Court, the Honorable Alieemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, presiding. The issues having been duly argued by counsel, the Court ruled in accordance with its Tentative Ruling given to counsel prior to the hearing. The text thereof follows.

The Court grants plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not claim probable cause for the seizure of plaintiffs camera nor cite any other exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant. Defendants’ sole justification is that seizure of the camera would eliminate plaintiffs “interference.”

Defendants’ claimed “good faith” belief in the need to seize plaintiffs property at the scene of the fire cannot be upheld as reasonable as a matter of law. Fourth Amendment principles for circumstances permitting arrests and seizures were clearly established in July of 1989. “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

The Court modified, signed, and filed plaintiffs proposed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

STOTLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication came on regularly for hearing before the Court, the Honorable Alieemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, presiding. The issues having been duly argued by counsel, the Court ruled in accordance with its Tentative Ruling given to counsel prior to the hearing. The text thereof follows.

The Court grants plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not claim probable cause for the seizure of plaintiffs camera nor cite any other exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant. Defendants’ sole justification is that seizure of the camera would eliminate plaintiffs “interference.”

Defendants’ claimed “good faith” belief in the need to seize plaintiffs property at the scene of the fire cannot be upheld as reasonable as a matter of law. Fourth Amendment principles for circumstances permitting arrests and seizures were clearly established in July of 1989. “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

The Court modified, signed, and filed plaintiffs proposed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

938 F. Supp. 581, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20838, 1990 WL 656120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-knapp-cacd-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack