Cupp v. County of Sonoma

Background

Ronald Cupp alleged that Sonoma County employees conducted three warrantless searches of his property in Santa Rosa, California. On February 15, 2019, Andrew Smith allegedly entered the property and took photographs. On March 27, 2020, Jesse Cablk and Todd Hoffman allegedly used a drone to surveil the property, and Cablk and Hoffman allegedly conducted another drone surveillance operation on June 1, 2022. Cupp alleged that the 2020 and 2022 incidents followed a County drone policy adopted in 2019.

Cupp brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment, including an alleged conspiracy. He also brought claims under two provisions of the California Constitution and common-law claims for trespass and invasion of privacy. The County and the individual defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Statute of limitations and abstention

The court held that the two-year limitations period for Cupp’s § 1983 claims barred claims based on events before March 6, 2021, the date two years before he filed the complaint. The court rejected Cupp’s argument that the continuing-violations doctrine extended the limitations period, concluding that the doctrine did not apply to his claims.

The defendants also argued that the court should refrain from hearing the case because of an administrative abatement proceeding related to the 2019 incident. The court rejected that argument. It found that Cupp’s remaining claims concerned the 2022 incident, which occurred after and was unrelated to the abatement decision, and that the defendants had not identified an ongoing state proceeding.

Federal claims

The court allowed Cupp’s municipal-liability claims against the County to proceed. Municipal liability under § 1983, often called a Monell claim, requires allegations that a municipality’s policy caused a constitutional violation. The court found that Cupp adequately alleged that the County adopted a drone policy and entered a contract with a private drone operator, and that County officials conducted warrantless searches under that policy.

The court dismissed Cupp’s § 1983 claims against Cablk and Hoffman concerning the 2022 incident based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when the alleged right was not clearly established at the time. The court concluded that Cupp had not shown that the Fourth Amendment clearly established a right against the alleged aerial surveillance, and that he had not identified a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right or alleged the required deprivation of life, liberty, or property under that amendment.

California constitutional and common-law claims

The court dismissed Cupp’s claims under Article I, Sections 7 and 13 of the California Constitution because he sought damages and California courts have not recognized a private damages action under those provisions.

The court denied dismissal of Cupp’s trespass and invasion-of-privacy claims against Cablk and Hoffman. It concluded that the complaint alleged that they implemented an existing drone policy rather than making protected basic policy decisions, and the defendants had not shown that discretionary immunity applied. The court also denied dismissal of the state common-law claims against the County because the County’s potential immunity depended on whether its employees could be held liable.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions in part and denied them in part. The motions were granted as to all claims against individual defendants other than Cablk and Hoffman; all claims to the extent they were not based on the 2022 incident; Cupp’s § 1983 claims against Cablk and Hoffman; and Cupp’s California constitutional claims. Those claims were dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. The motions were denied as to Cupp’s Monell claims and his state common-law claims against Cablk, Hoffman, and the County. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.