Cook v. Torres

Background

David L. Cook, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that police officers unlawfully searched, arrested, and detained him during incidents on August 16, October 3, and October 15, 2018, and January 9, 2019.

During the August 16, October 3, and October 15 incidents, Cook was on court-ordered probation for a nonviolent misdemeanor. His probation order required him to submit his person, residence, vehicle, and property under his control to searches and seizures by police, with or without a warrant. The probation ended on November 18, 2018. Police information systems incorrectly indicated at various points that Cook was subject to a different form of supervision called post-release community supervision.

Summary-Judgment Rulings

Summary judgment is available when the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court considered the defendants’ motions under that standard.

For the October 3, 2018 incident, Concord Police Sergeant Sansen and other officers searched Cook at a motel after police received a report that Cook had committed sexual assault and had a firearm. The court found reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and concluded that the search was reasonable in light of Cook’s probation search condition and the government’s interest in investigating sexual assault and firearm possession. The court granted Sansen’s motion for summary judgment. It also ruled that, even if the search violated the Constitution, Sansen would have qualified immunity, which protects officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

For the October 15, 2018 incident, Antioch Officer Cox stopped and searched Cook after learning that Cook was associated with a fraud-investigation subject and had attempted to use counterfeit money. Cox confirmed Cook’s probation status and search condition. The court found the search reasonable under the circumstances and granted summary judgment to Cox. For the same reasons, it granted summary judgment to the dispatcher defendant who communicated with Cox about Cook’s probation status. The court also held that the officers would have qualified immunity even if a constitutional violation had occurred.

For the August 16, 2018 incident, Officer Marcos Torres searched Cook and his vehicle, handcuffed him, and arrested him after Cook provided identification and Torres received information that Cook was subject to post-release community supervision. Torres found a loaded firearm, ammunition, and counterfeit money. The court found disputed facts about what Torres knew about Cook’s court-ordered probation and about Torres’s involvement in the search and arrest. Viewing the evidence in Cook’s favor, the court held that a jury could find a constitutional violation. It rejected the argument that the search was supported by the high-crime location alone and declined to decide whether a suspicionless search of a person on probation for a nonviolent crime would otherwise be lawful. Torres was not entitled to qualified immunity because, on Cook’s version of the facts, a reasonable officer would have understood that the search, detention, and arrest were unconstitutional. Torres’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to this incident.

The court granted summary judgment to Officers Hynes and Ramirez because the undisputed evidence showed that they only handcuffed Cook while Torres searched the vehicle and were not involved in the decisions to search or arrest him. They also would have had qualified immunity even if their conduct had violated the Constitution.

For the January 9, 2019 incident, Officer Downie conducted a pat-down after observing Cook’s vehicle in a disabled parking space without a disabled plate or placard. Downie found body armor and a bottle containing a liquid he suspected was heroin. Cook later pleaded no contest to possessing body armor and received a two-year sentence. The court held that his § 1983 challenge to the search was barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey because success on the claim would imply that the arrest and conviction were invalid. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Downie and dispatcher Scott on this claim.

Other Rulings and Case Status

The court denied Cook’s request for sanctions. It also denied the Concord defendant’s motion asking the court not to consider Cook’s additional oppositions; the court reviewed those filings in light of Cook’s status as an incarcerated person representing himself.

The court referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program before Magistrate Judge Illman. Cook was required to participate in mediation but was not required to settle. The court stayed the case and directed the clerk to administratively close it until further order.

Disposition

The court granted Sansen’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed him with prejudice. It granted in part and denied in part the Antioch defendants’ motion for summary judgment. All defendants except Torres were dismissed with prejudice, and the case continued against Torres concerning the August 16, 2018 incident. The court also denied the motion concerning Cook’s further oppositions and denied Cook’s request for sanctions.