Ryan Morrison v. Alvaro Ramos

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2023
• Docket: 22-55684
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 16 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RYAN MORRISON, No. 22-55684

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01961-JGB-JPR v.

MEMORANDUM* ALVARO RAMOS, in his individual and official capacity; DAVID MIRZOYAN, in his individual and official capacity; MICHAEL BOYLLS, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARDO ACOSTA; JEFFREY MEGEE; DOES, 1 through 13, inclusive; CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Argued and Submitted September 14, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Ryan Morrison appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of appellee police officers Alvaro Ramos, David Mirzoyan, and Michael

Boylls in Morrison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming false arrest and unlawful

seizure. At the time of the arrest, Morrison was living in an apartment with his

mother, who had contacted police and reported that Morrison had attacked her.

She led the police to the apartment, let them in, and identified Morrison’s bedroom

before they arrested him over his objection. After a court found probable cause to

believe he had committed felony assault with a deadly weapon and battery with

serious bodily injury, Morrison was tried before a jury and acquitted.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the false arrest

and unlawful seizure claims. Morrison does not seriously dispute on appeal that

the officers had probable cause to arrest him. Instead, he challenges the means by

which the officers carried out the arrest, arguing that the officers violated his

clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him inside his home

without a warrant and over his objection in violation of Payton v. New York, 445

U.S. 573 (1980). See United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 894 (9th Cir.

2 1985) (“Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search or arrest in a

residence . . . unless some exception to the warrant requirement is also present.”)

Appellees contend that the district court correctly concluded that the officers were

entitled to qualified immunity, particularly because Morrison’s mother had

consented to the warrantless entry of the apartment they were sharing.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil

damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of

the challenged conduct.” Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 757 (2014) (quoting

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). Warrantless searches and seizures

are generally reasonable with consent from an owner or occupant. See Illinois v.

Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990). But they are generally unreasonable when a

co-occupant is present and objects. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106

(2006). The Supreme Court has explained that “widely shared social expectations”

are significant in assessing reasonableness and suggested that children may have

less authority over a shared home than their parents. Id. at 111, 113-14. At the

time of the arrest, there was no controlling authority or consensus of persuasive

authority that a warrant was required to enter a residence shared by a consenting

parent and an objecting adult child, or an adult child’s bedroom within it. See

3 District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018) (explaining that a right is

clearly established only if it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust

consensus of persuasive authority). In the absence of clearly established law, the

officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Morrison’s claims.

AFFIRMED.