Stenson v. King County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DEREK STENSON, CASE NO. C23-1316 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR 12 v. RECONSIDERATION 13 KING COUNTY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration of 17 the Discrete Issue of Plaintiff’s Unreasonable Search and Seizure Claim. (Dkt. No. 59.) Having 18 reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 In their Joint Motion, the Parties argue that the Court erred by stating that Defendants had 20 not moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and 21 seizure claim. (Mot. at 1-2 (citing Order on MSJ at 13 (Dkt. No. 56)).) Defendants note that they 22 asked for summary judgment on this claim in a portion of their Motion and briefly addressed it in 23 the reply. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also notes that he provided a 10 line response in opposition. (Id.) 24 1 The Court agrees with the Parties that Defendants adequately sought summary judgment 2 on this claim and the Court should have ruled on the request. Accordingly, the Court finds that 3 reconsideration is warranted under Local Civil Rule 7(h), as withholding ruling on this issue 4 would constitute manifest error.

5 Upon reconsideration, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment 6 in their favor on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. 7 “In the context of a § 1983 action, a Fourth Amendment violation occurs when a person 8 is arrested ‘without probable cause or other justification.’” Vanegas v. City of Pasadena, 46 F.4th 9 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 10 2012) (en banc)). But “[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has 11 committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the 12 Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 13 (2001). “Probable cause exists if the arresting officers ‘had knowledge and reasonably 14 trustworthy information of facts and circumstances sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe

15 that [the arrestee] had committed or was committing a crime.’” Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 16 F.3d 1086, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Maxwell v. County of San 17 Diego, 697 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2012)). “In determining whether there was probable cause to 18 arrest, we look to ‘the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officers, [to determine if] 19 a prudent person would have concluded there was a fair probability that[the defendant] had 20 committed a crime.’” Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 432 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 21 United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1986)). “While evidence supporting probable 22 cause need not be admissible in court, it must be ‘legally sufficient and reliable.’” Id. at 432-33 23 (quoting Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 438 (9th Cir. 2002)). “Probable cause is not a high

24 1 bar”—“[i]t requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual 2 showing of such activity.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 (2018). 3 The Court finds that Leenstra had probable cause to arrest Sarrett on the day of the 4 shooting and, as a result, Plaintiff cannot pursue a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim.

5 Construing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court must, there is uncontroverted evidence 6 that Leenstra received reliable evidence from Sarrett’s sisters that Sarrett illegally possessed a 7 weapon and had assaulted his sister earlier that day by pointing the weapon at her. (See Order on 8 MSJ at 17.) Additionally, Leenstra believed Sarrett had the weapon in his pocket at the time of 9 their interaction. (See id.) Given the existence of probable cause, Leenstra’s decision to arrest 10 Sarrett was not unreasonable. Plaintiff cannot pursue his Fourth Amendment search and seizure 11 claim. See Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in 12 Defendants’ favor on this claim. The Court notes that this ruling does not alter the Court’s denial 13 of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15 Dated December 23, 2024. A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24