Powelson v. Sausalito Police Department

Background

Robbie Powelson, who proceeded without a lawyer, sued the City of Sausalito and several police officers over events involving homeless encampments at Dunphy Park, Marinship Park, and Vina Del Mar Park. The operative complaint was his first amended complaint. The United States Army Corps of Engineers and one of its employees had also been named originally, but those defendants were no longer in the case.

In an earlier order, the court allowed only certain claims to continue. Those included claims concerning Powelson’s June 29, 2021 arrest, his November 23, 2021 arrest, a March 15, 2022 confrontation with police, and part of a claim concerning parking tickets.

Claims Powelson Dropped or Did Not Pursue

Powelson stated in his opposition and confirmed at the hearing that he had voluntarily dropped the remaining parts of Counts 3 and 4, which concerned his June 29, 2021 arrest. The court therefore dismissed what remained of those counts. The court also dismissed any portion of Count 11 that had survived the earlier motion to dismiss because Powelson confirmed that he was not pursuing it.

November 23, 2021 Arrest

Counts 7 and 8 concerned Powelson’s arrest at Vina Del Mar Park. The arrest followed an interaction in which Powelson appeared to be filming the police and told an officer to “Stop” and “Get back” while the officer was dealing with another camper and her dog. The incident report stated that Powelson was arrested for disorderly conduct under California Penal Code section 647(e) and obstruction under section 148(a)(1).

The court held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect individual government officials when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful. The court concluded that a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest Powelson for obstruction, even if that belief was mistaken. The court also found an arguable basis to arrest him for disorderly conduct based on evidence that he had been lodging in the park. Because probable cause for any one offense can defeat these claims, the court granted summary judgment on all claims related to the November 23 arrest.

March 15, 2022 Confrontation

Counts 9 and 10 concerned a confrontation in the Marinship Park parking lot. Powelson was recording cars being seized and approached a parking-enforcement vehicle while documents containing names and addresses were inside. After he was warned about viewing or recording the documents, he later approached the vehicle again. The court found that the video showed an officer shoved or pushed him away; it did not show that he was tackled.

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court held that qualified immunity applied because the law did not clearly establish that filming or photographing documents inside a law-enforcement vehicle was constitutionally protected activity. The court distinguished that conduct from the established right to record police officers performing their duties in public.

For the excessive-force claim, the court likewise held that qualified immunity applied. Powelson was not arrested, and the court stated that it was not clearly established at the time that a push or shove by itself constituted a seizure. The court also rejected the alternative argument that the conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that Powelson had based his claim on the Fourth Amendment and that the shove, after a warning not to view or photograph the documents, did not meet the required constitutional standard.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the order disposed of all remaining claims, it directed the clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case.