Sinsukthaworn v. County of Napa

Background

Kochagorn Sinsukthaworn and James Hopkins sued the County of Napa, James Walsh, and Richard Scannell. They challenged the seizure and destruction of marijuana plants they described as legal and properly licensed. The remaining claims were: a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; two municipal-liability claims under § 1983, based on ratification and inadequate training; a claim under California Government Code section 815.2(a); a claim under California’s Bane Act; and a request for punitive damages.

On July 17, 2021, California Highway Patrol officers stopped a box truck carrying approximately 750 marijuana plants. The occupants did not have a valid California cannabis distribution license. Deputy Scannell seized the plants and took them for destruction. Officer Walsh later investigated the property listed in a document found with the truck and obtained a warrant from a Napa County Superior Court judge. The warrant authorized a search of the property and seizure and destruction of marijuana not retained as evidence. Officers executed the warrant on August 2, 2021, and eradicated 2,326 growing, immature marijuana plants and found bags of processed marijuana shake.

Plaintiffs had a provisional cultivation license and a cannabis-waste plan allowing certain methods of disposing of cannabis waste, including self-hauling it to specified facilities. They argued that the plants in the truck were waste and that Walsh’s warrant affidavit should have disclosed their condition, the waste-management rules, and the state cannabis department’s licensing authority. Plaintiffs also argued that Scannell failed to pass along information about the plants’ condition.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must generally view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

Fourth Amendment claim against Walsh

Plaintiffs did not challenge the warrant’s particularity, its execution, or the fact that the affidavit, as submitted to the state judge, supported probable cause. Instead, they claimed Walsh obtained the warrant through judicial deception. A judicial-deception claim requires evidence that the affidavit contained a material false statement or omission and a substantial showing that the officer acted intentionally or recklessly.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Walsh engaged in judicial deception by omitting California Business and Professions Code section 26012(a), which gives the state cannabis department authority over commercial cannabis licenses. The court explained that judicial-deception claims concern omitted facts, not an officer’s failure to include a law or legal theory in a warrant affidavit. Plaintiffs conceded they knew of no case supporting their theory.

For purposes of summary judgment, the court accepted that the plants were cannabis waste and that plaintiffs could lawfully self-haul such waste under the regulations then in effect. The court concluded that the plants’ condition could have been a material omission because including that information might have undermined probable cause to believe the plants were being transported for sale.

But the court held that plaintiffs did not make the required substantial showing that Walsh intentionally or recklessly omitted the plants’ condition. Walsh was not present at the traffic stop, and plaintiffs identified no evidence that he knew the plants were sick, dead, or otherwise cannabis waste before preparing the affidavit. The court therefore granted summary judgment in Walsh’s favor on the § 1983 claim.

Fourth Amendment claim against Scannell

Plaintiffs invoked the integral-participant doctrine, which can impose § 1983 liability on an officer whose actions were fundamentally involved in an unlawful search even if the officer’s own conduct did not independently violate the Constitution. The court held that because plaintiffs had not established a viable judicial-deception claim, there was no underlying constitutional violation for Scannell to have helped cause. The court granted summary judgment in Scannell’s favor on the § 1983 claim.

Municipal liability

Plaintiffs did not address their ratification theory in opposition to summary judgment, so the court deemed that claim abandoned. As to inadequate training, plaintiffs relied on testimony that Scannell and Walsh had not received training about cannabis-waste rules. The court held that evidence involving two officers was insufficient to show the pattern of similar constitutional violations ordinarily needed to establish deliberate indifference by the County. Plaintiffs also did not show that this was the rare situation in which the consequences of inadequate training were so obvious that a pattern was unnecessary. The court entered summary judgment for Napa County on Counts Two and Three.

State-law claims

The court granted summary judgment for Napa County on the section 815.2(a) claim because the federal claims had failed and plaintiffs offered no separate theory or argument supporting the County’s vicarious liability. The court also concluded that summary judgment on the Bane Act claim was appropriate because the Bane Act requires specific intent to violate a constitutional right, and plaintiffs had not advanced an argument concerning Walsh’s or Scannell’s specific intent.

Motion for sanctions

Plaintiffs sought sanctions for spoliation—the destruction or failure to preserve evidence that should have been retained for litigation—after learning that Scannell had taken photographs of the plants during the traffic stop. The photographs had been uploaded to an evidence server and were later deleted under a three-year retention policy. The court held that the photographs were electronically stored information governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), should have been preserved, were not reasonably preserved, and could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery.

The court nevertheless denied the requested sanctions. More severe sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) require an intent to deprive the opposing party of the evidence. The court found no evidence that defendants willfully destroyed the photographs to prevent their discovery. The court also found no prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1), because it had assumed for purposes of summary judgment that the plants were cannabis waste and still granted summary judgment based on the absence of evidence that Walsh knew their condition. The court therefore denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts: Count One, the Fourth Amendment claim; Counts Two and Three, the municipal-liability claims; Count Four, the section 815.2(a) claim; and Count Five, the Bane Act claim. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. A separate judgment was to be entered.