Schmid v. County of Sonoma

Background

Frear Stephen Schmid and Astrid Schmid own 61 acres in Sonoma County and disputed with county officials whether work on their barn required a permit. They applied for an agricultural exemption from the permit requirement. The county denied the exemption, and the Sonoma Board of Building Appeals unanimously upheld that decision.

The county’s inspector determined that the barn was being used to store vehicles rather than for agricultural purposes. The Schmids disagreed and said the vehicles were used for agriculture. They initially refused a second inspection on Fourth Amendment grounds, later agreed to open the barn, and then blocked its entrance with hay bales. The county advised them that access was needed for the inspection and that the exemption would be denied if access was not provided. The Schmids refused further inspections.

The Schmids sued Sonoma County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and under California law. Their federal claim relied on the Fourth Amendment and two Fourteenth Amendment theories: substantive due process, which concerns arbitrary government action, and procedural due process, which concerns notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Sonoma moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Federal Claim

The court granted summary judgment to Sonoma on the Section 1983 claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

On the Fourth Amendment theory, the court held that the record showed no unreasonable search or seizure. The Schmids consented to the inspectors’ visits to their property and agreed to open the barn. The hay-bale wall prevented the inspector from entering the barn, and no evidence showed that a government official entered without consent. The court also explained that refusing an administrative inspection, without criminal or similar penalties for refusal, may result in denial of a government benefit without violating the Fourth Amendment. Here, the main consequence of refusing inspection was denial of the exemption, and the Schmids could have applied for a building permit.

The court rejected the substantive due process theory because the exemption denial was not arbitrary or irrational. The Schmids had begun construction before obtaining a permit or exemption, an inspector determined that the barn was not being used for an agricultural purpose, and the Schmids refused additional inspections that could have verified their claimed agricultural use.

The court also rejected the procedural due process theory. The Schmids received notice and a meaningful opportunity to present their position. The appeals hearing lasted more than two hours; the board asked questions, the Schmids made a statement, and they submitted a written statement with attachments beforehand. The court found that the lack of cross-examination did not deprive them of a fair opportunity to explain their position, and the record did not show that the board was biased or had prejudged the matter.

State Claims and Other Rulings

After resolving the federal claims in Sonoma’s favor, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California state-law claims. The court dismissed claims two and three without prejudice.

The court overruled the parties’ evidentiary objections to the extent it relied on the challenged evidence and otherwise terminated the objections as moot. It also denied Sonoma’s request to file a motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, explaining that although Sonoma was entitled to summary judgment, the Schmids’ claims were not shown to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Disposition

Summary judgment was granted to the County of Sonoma on claim one. Claims two and three were dismissed without prejudice. Sonoma’s request to file an attorney’s-fee motion was denied.