Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department (May 9, 2001)

* court: Ninth Circuit

* public agency: Kitsap County, Washington

* plaintiffs' job classes: deputy sheriff

* trial court's decision: in favor of defendants

* Ninth Circuit's decision: in favor of defendants

* issue area: false arrest, Warrant, Section 1983

 

Case Facts

* Dawn Case in 1993 was behind in her child support payments. An arrest warrant was issued by the Oregon court for the county in which she was delinquent. She was arrested and placed on probation. 

* While on probation, she failed to make her child support payments, and in December 1993, another Oregon warrant was issued. 

* The warrant was entered into the NCIC system. In 1994 the District Attorney for the applicable Oregon County (Yamhill) found out Case was living in Kitsap County, Washington. 

* Yamhill County representatives contacted Kitsap County about the outstanding Oregon warrant. Kitsap confirmed that the warrant was in NCIC. 

* Kitsap deputies visited Case’s residence a first time and were turned away by Case’s relative. Deputies returned later and were denied entry. They knocked, used a loudspeaker and eventually kicked in the door, finding Case hiding in a closet. 

* For unexplained reasons, Case was not extradited to Oregon. 

* She filed a Section 1983 action in Washington State court, which the county removed to federal court. 

* The federal district court granted summary judgment for the county. 

* The Ninth Circuit by a thin 2-1 vote affirmed. 

 

Kitsap Analysis

* This was a qualified imminently case. Remember there are two issues under qualified immunity”: 

(1) was the constitutional law clear and (2) would a reasonable officer think that what the defendant officers did was lawful?  * In this case, the law was clear. So the only issue left under qualified immunity was whether a reasonable officer could have believed that what the Kitsap deputies did was lawful. 

* The issue boiled down to whether Washington law permitted a felony arrest with only an Oregon warrant but without a Washington warrant. The court said that Washington law and common sense both provided that an Oregon felony warrant was enough. 

* The court reminded us that, for qualified immunity purposes, you only look to federal statutory or constitutional law. So, as long as a reasonable peace officer would conclude that the Kitsap deputies did not violate federal statutory or constitutional law, then it is irrelevant that the Kitsap deputies may have violated state law or department policy. 

* Although courts get real antsy when peace officers enter a home without permission, it was lawful where as here the officers possessed a valid warrant (but they better be sure that the suspect actually lives there). 

* The dissent argued that any reasonable Washington peace officer would know that an Oregon warrant is not worth the paper it is printed on in Washington. The dissent goes so far as to assert with a straight face that what the Kitsap deputies did here constituted the Washington tort of outrage.