Roger Craig v. City of Stockton

Ninth Circuit

Roger Craig v. City of Stockton

441 F. App'x 481

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2011

Docket10-15776

StatusUnpublished

This text of 441 F. App'x 481 (Roger Craig v. City of Stockton) 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

Roger Craig v. City of Stockton, 441 F. App'x 481 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Sonya Wolf and Roger Craig appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Stockton and to Officers Darren Sandoval and Eric Azve-rand. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The officers’ limited search of Wolfs van was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. See Brigham, City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403-04, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006); United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2000). Given the concerns of Nicholas’s father, the unusual living conditions inside the van, and Wolfs uncooperative and disruptive behavior, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Nicholas was residing in a situation unsafe for a young child, and thus that a potential emergency situation required further investigation. See United States v. Bradley, 321 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.2003); White v. Pierce Cnty., 797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir.1986). The officers’ search of the van and interview with Nicholas did not go beyond that which was necessary to determine that he was safe. See Martin v. City of Oceanside, 360 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.2004).

Furthermore, the officers’ brief detention of Wolf during the interview with Nicholas did not violate the Fourth Amendment. By her own admission, Wolf was disrupting the officers’ attempts to speak with Nicholas. Because their investigation of Nicholas’s welfare was valid under the Fourth Amendment, so too was their reasonable decision temporarily to detain Wolf to facilitate such investigation. *482 Wolf remained within clear sight of Nicholas throughout the interview, and her detention lasted no longer than necessary to facilitate the officers’ investigation.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Sonya Wolf and Roger Craig appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Stockton and to Officers Darren Sandoval and Eric Azve-rand. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The officers’ limited search of Wolfs van was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. See Brigham, City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403-04, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006); United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2000). Given the concerns of Nicholas’s father, the unusual living conditions inside the van, and Wolfs uncooperative and disruptive behavior, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Nicholas was residing in a situation unsafe for a young child, and thus that a potential emergency situation required further investigation. See United States v. Bradley, 321 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.2003); White v. Pierce Cnty., 797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir.1986). The officers’ search of the van and interview with Nicholas did not go beyond that which was necessary to determine that he was safe. See Martin v. City of Oceanside, 360 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.2004).

Furthermore, the officers’ brief detention of Wolf during the interview with Nicholas did not violate the Fourth Amendment. By her own admission, Wolf was disrupting the officers’ attempts to speak with Nicholas. Because their investigation of Nicholas’s welfare was valid under the Fourth Amendment, so too was their reasonable decision temporarily to detain Wolf to facilitate such investigation. *482 Wolf remained within clear sight of Nicholas throughout the interview, and her detention lasted no longer than necessary to facilitate the officers’ investigation.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F. App'x 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roger-craig-v-city-of-stockton-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack