Ruth Dempsey v. Gibson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2023
• Docket: 21-16829
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUTH DEMPSEY, No. 21-16829

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00243-JR

v. MEMORANDUM* GIBSON, CM, Deputy, #5165, in his individual and official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jacqueline M. Rateau, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 10, 2023*** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ruth Dempsey appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in

favor of Deputy Christian Gibson, Deputy Jeffrey ten Elshof, and Sergeant Gosta

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Zetterberg of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department in a civil rights action alleging

violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Iwai, 930 F.3d

1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2019); Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 756 F.3d

1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly held that the deputies’ warrantless entry into and

search of Dempsey’s private room was justified under the emergency aid

exception. See United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding

officers’ warrantless entry and search is justified if they have an objectively

reasonable belief that there is an immediate need to protect others or themselves

from serious harm and the scope and manner of entry and search are reasonable to

meet that need). The deputies presented “specific and articulable facts” justifying

their belief that a resident of the assisted-living care home may have needed

immediate medical assistance. Sandoval, 756 F.3d at 1164 (quoting United States

v. Ojeda, 276 F.3d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)). The deputies knew that

there had been recent violence in the care home, the care home was in poor

condition, the residents appeared to speak only English but the sole caregiver

present spoke primarily Spanish, and the caregiver and Dempsey had lied to the

deputies. These undisputed facts, particularly when considering Dempsey’s

deceptive conduct, provided an objectively reasonable basis to conclude that there

2 may have been injured, abused, or neglected residents in the area that Dempsey

marked private. See Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469, 476–77 (2012) (per curiam)

(“[A] combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation

may paint an alarming picture.”); Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009) (per

curiam) (“Officers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening

injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)). The scope and manner of the deputies’ search was also

reasonable: they looked inside Dempsey’s room, saw no one there, and left. See

Snipe, 515 F.3d at 952.

AFFIRMED.