Paul Navicky v. Aaron Gevatosky

Ninth Circuit

Paul Navicky v. Aaron Gevatosky

651 F. App'x 624

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2016

Docket14-35671

StatusUnpublished

This text of 651 F. App'x 624 (Paul Navicky v. Aaron Gevatosky) 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

Paul Navicky v. Aaron Gevatosky, 651 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Navicky appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Navicky failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as *625 to whether the defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for conducting a warrantless search of Navicky’s home and whether the scope and manner of the search were unreasonable. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment applies where “(1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm; and (2) the search’s scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need”).

We do not address Navicky’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that defendants made misrepresentations in their affidavits in support of the search warrant. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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 **

Paul Navicky appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Navicky failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as *625 to whether the defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for conducting a warrantless search of Navicky’s home and whether the scope and manner of the search were unreasonable. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment applies where “(1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm; and (2) the search’s scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need”).

We do not address Navicky’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that defendants made misrepresentations in their affidavits in support of the search warrant. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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)

651 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-navicky-v-aaron-gevatosky-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack