Crowe v. County of San Diego

ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

RHOADES, District Judge.

Death is always and under all circumstances a tragedy, for if it is not, then it means that life itself has become one.

-Letter from Theodore Roosevelt to Cecil Spring-Rice (March 12, 1900)

1

This tragic story centers around the investigation into the death of young Stephanie Crowe in January 1998. Stephanie’s murder was investigated by the Escondido Police Department. The investigation of her death initially led to the arrest and

*1058

indictment of Stephanie’s brother, Michael Crowe, and his two friends, Michael Treadway and Aaron Houser (collectively, “the boys”), all juveniles at the time. Pri- or to the boys’ trial, potentially-exculpatory evidence was discovered which resulted in the District Attorney dropping the charges against the boys without prejudice. Currently, a man named Richard Tuite is on trial for Stephanie’s murder.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On the night of January 20, 1998, the police received phone calls that Tuite, a transient, was bothering people in the vicinity of the Crowe residence. Witnesses testified at their depositions in this case that the man they saw appeared drunk or high.

See

Sharon Thomas Deposition Transcript (“DT”) p. 16:22-24 (Exhibit 2, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Lodgment (“NOL”) in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”)); Sheldon Homa DT p. 17:12-15 (Exhibit 6, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). One witness heard Tuite yell “I’m going to kill you you fucking bitch.” Sharon Thomas DT p. 18:1-6. Another witness saw Tuite spinning around in circles.

See

Dawn Homa DT p. 51:11-52:2 (Exhibit 7, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ).

Between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. that night, Tuite entered one house after the occupant, Dannette Mogelinski, mistaking his knock for that of a neighbor, invited him in.

See

Dannette Mogelinski DT p. 27:27-28:13 (Exhibit 3, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). Tuite repeatedly asked for Tracy. Mogelinski said she did not know Tracy. Tuite left but then opened the door and again asked for Tracy. Mogelinski again said she did not know Tracy, and Tuite left.

See id.

pp. 32:12-33:28.

Around 9:28 p.m., Gary West, a neighbor of the Crowes, called police to report a transient who had knocked on his door and said he was looking for a girl.

See

Exhibit 11, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ. Escondido police officer Scott Walters, not a defendant in this action, was dispatched to the area. While investigating this call, Officer Walters drove up to the Crowe house. As he explained in his deposition in this case:

There was a motion light above the garage door that turned on when I drove up. The door that was next to the garage door was open. And I could see inside. There were lights inside the house. Absolutely nothing unusual at the house. And the door closed as I pulled up. I couldn’t see who was closing it.

Scott Walters DT p. 49:20-28 (Exhibit 15, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). Officer Walters left the Crowe house and indicated in his log that the transient was “gone on arrival.”

See id.

p.

50:3-5.

This was some time before 10:00 p.m.

Stephanie Crowe was found dead by her grandmother, Judith Kennedy around 6:30 a.m. on January 21, 1998. An autopsy determined that Stephanie was stabbed numerous times with a knife with a 5-6 inch blade. It is undisputed on this record that Stephanie died between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. on January 20,1998.

See

Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ, Fact 17. Paramedics John Peters and Steve Mandieh, not defendants in this action, were the first to respond to the 911 call. Detective Barry Sweeney, a detective with the Escondí-

*1059

do Police Department and a defendant in this action, arrived on the scene soon after.

Police questioned all of the members of the Crowe household. Michael Crowe was questioned several times. Before the first questioning of Michael Crowe, Michael was advised of his

Miranda

rights. During this questioning, Michael told Detective Mark Wrisley, a defendant in this action, and Detective Phillip Han, who is not a defendant in this action, that he had gotten up at 4:30 a.m. that morning with a headache.

See

Transcript of Police Interview of Michael Crowe Taken at The Polinsky Center, January 22, 1998 pp. 21:23-22:10. He had turned on his television for light and had walked to the kitchen, where he took some Tylenol.

See id.

pp. 22:3-23:12. Michael stated that he was in the kitchen for approximately 15 minutes.

See id.

p. 23:15-17. He stated that when he was in the hallway he could see that Stephanie’s door was closed, as were the other doors.

See id.

pp. 22:28-23:5; 24:23-28. By defendants’ account, the statement that Stephanie’s door was closed was suspicious because by 4:30 a.m. Stephanie was dead in the doorway of her bedroom with the door open.

See

Phillip Anderson DT pp. 132:26-133:8 (Exhibit 21, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). During this interview, Michael Crowe also stated that Joshua Treadway was his best friend.

On January 22, 1998, Escondido Police Detectives Lanigan and Naranjo, not defendants in this case, went to the Tread-way residence to speak with Joshua Tread-way. The detectives saw a knife in plain view on top of a couch in the living room.

See

Lanigan DT pp. 27:13-28:12 (Exhibit E, attached to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Escondido Defendants’ MSJ or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, of the Claims Asserted by the Treadway Plaintiffs). When Joshua was asked who owned the knife, he said it was his brother’s; however, when his brother was questioned about the knife, he stated that it belonged to Joshua.

2

See id.

pp. 28:13-29:27; 33:4-35:20.

After being questioned two additional times, Michael Crowe was arrested for Stephanie’s murder on January 23, 1998.

On January 26, 1998 Detective Han obtained a search warrant for the Treadway residence. Probable cause for the warrant was predicated upon the fact that Michael Crowe had been arrested for the murder, Michael had stated that Joshua Treadway was his best friend, Michael had called Joshua Treadway from the police station on the morning of the murder, and a knife meeting the description of the murder weapon had been seen at the Treadway residence.

On January 27, 1998, prior to the execution of the search warrant for the Tread-way residence, Margaret Houser,

3

Aaron Houser’s mother, alerted police to the fact that a knife with a 4-5 inch blade which belonged to her son was missing from his collection. Based on this information, De

*1060

tective Han sought and obtained a warrant to search the Houser residence.

4

Defendants also questioned Aaron Houser that same day. Aaron Houser’s questioning lasted approximately

Vf¡

hours, and the focus of the questioning was on Michael’s possible involvement in the murder. Aaron was asked about his friendship with Michael, his interest in fantasy games, and Michael’s personality. Aaron told detectives that as far as he knew, Michael did not get along with his parents and that Michael had a “make-believe list of people he would kill.”

See

Transcript of Interrogation of Aaron Houser dated 1-27-98 pp. 13:12-13; 15:10-21. Aaron was also asked about Aaron’s interest in knives and about the knife that he was missing. Aaron did not make any self-incriminating statements during this interview.

The warrants for the Treadway and Houser residences were executed on the evening of January 27, 1998. While the warrant for the Treadway residence was being executed, Joshua Treadway was being questioned by police. Joshua’s interrogation began around 7:00 p.m. During his questioning, the search of the Treadway residence revealed two knives under his bed. One had a 5/£ inch blade, and the other had a 6 inch blade. Joshua was then arrested for stealing Aaron Houser’s knife. After being read his

Miranda

rights, Joshua admitted taking the knife from Aaron, but denied any involvement in Stephanie’s death. However, over the course of further questioning, Joshua changed his story. He told defendants that he had gotten the knife from Aaron Houser and that Aaron had told him it was the knife used to kill Stephanie. Joshua’s questioning ended at approximately 8:15 a.m. on January 28. Joshua was allowed to go home after the questioning.

Joshua Treadway was questioned again on February 10, 1998. This time, over the course of approximately twelve hours, Joshua gave what appeared to be a detailed account of the events leading up to the murder and stated that he had acted as a lookout while Aaron and Michael committed the murder. Joshua’s confession, which was ruled voluntary by the state court trial judge, suggested that Michael killed Stephanie because he did not like her.

5

See

Transcript of Interrogation of Joshua Treadway dated 2-10-98 p. 60:19-20 (“Well, I knew Michael hated his sister. I knew that he always had a kind of grudge against her.”); p. 305:6-8 (“Well, you know, just Michael started talking how he didn’t really like his sister a whole bunch and he’d really like to kill her.”); p.

*1061

358:1-2 (“Just, what I heard was Michael was always complaining about his sister.”).

Joshua Treadway also told police that although he thought that Aaron and Michael were initially just joking about killing Stephanie, Aaron and Michael’s plan progressed “until it became an actual thing that they had wanted to do as of the night that it happened.”

Id.

pp. 309:28-310:4. At some point during the questioning, Joshua was arrested for Stephanie’s murder.

On the morning of February 11, 1998, Detective Ralph Claytor, a defendant in this action, obtained search warrants for the residence and school locker of Aaron Houser. Those warrants were executed on the morning of February 11 by defendant Sweeney and Sergeant Phillip Anderson, also a defendant in this case.

Aaron Houser was arrested on February 11, 1998 and questioned for a second time. Aaron did not admit involvement in Stephanie’s murder. However, during this questioning, Aaron explained that if he were going to kill Stephanie, the first thing he would do is tuck the knife in the back of his pants so that he could easily grab it when he needed it but so that she could not see it. He “would grab one of her arms and put it behind her back. And with the other one, I would grab and close her mouth and nose and pull her chin up. I would pull her back, let go of the arm, grab the knife and cut her throat like that.” Transcript of Police Interview of Aaron Houser dated 2-11-1998 p. 100:2-8. Aaron then explained that because of the chance of getting blood on himself, he would wear sparse clothing, preferably dark clothing so the blood wouldn’t show up easily, “so there is not much of a chance for blood to get on it or so that it’s easy to dispose of and then find a way to get out of there and clean myself off. Destroy the evidence.”

Id.

pp. 100:13-17; 101:10-14. Aaron said that he would not wear gloves and that afterward he would take the knife and “fire it” to destroy chemical evidence and then he would get rid of it.

Id.

p. 100:18-28. Aaron also stated that he would choose 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. to commit the murder because it would be less likely that anyone would be awake.

Id.

p. 102:7-16. He stated that he would climb through a small window “because doors can be locked and can be noisy,” as can large windows.

Id.

p. 102:17-24. Although a small window might be “a little noisy,” small windows such as bathroom windows are usually locked.

Id.

p. 102:20-24. Aaron proceeded to again explain the logistics of how he would hypothetically kill Stephanie, as set forth in the following colloquy:

Q. If you went into her room and you saw her, how would you approach it?

A. Well, at this time she would probably be sleeping. She was sleeping, I probably would just try to cut her throat as quickly as possible without really waking her.

Q. How would you do that?

A. If she was sleeping on her back, I would — with my left hand would cover her mouth and simultaneously slice her throat and hold it for awhile until I was sure that she was dead.

Q. And how would you know?

A. Tension in the muscles. If she was dead, they would relax. Pulse. Breathing. Eyes. If there were wide in terror. They would probably be shivering. Or they would be completely still. Again, relaxed....

Id.

pp. 103:25-104:12.

In late May 1998, the grand jury issued indictments against the boys. Some time after June 1, 1998, defendant Summer Stephan took over as the assigned prosecutor. Prior to the boys’ trial, drops of Stepha

*1062

nie’s blood were found on Tuite’s sweatshirt. The charges against the boys were dismissed without prejudice.

After the dismissal of the charges against them, the boys and their family members filed three separate complaints in state court alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state-law torts. Defendants removed the three complaints to federal court in February 1999. On January 3, 2000, the Court issued a fifty-four page order on defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints. In that order, the court consolidated the actions and ordered the plaintiffs to file a Joint First Amended Complaint (“JFAC”).

Plaintiffs proceeded to file a JFAC consisting of 64 pages, 240 paragraphs, and 12 claims, 10 of which survived a second round of motions to dismiss. Named as defendants in the JFAC are Escondido Police Officers Claytor, Wrisley, Sweeney and Anderson (collectively “the Escondido defendants”) and the City of Escondido. Also named as defendants are Lawrence Blum, a private psychologist who consulted with the Escondido Police Department during the investigation, Chris McDon-ough, a police officer with the City of Oceanside who participated in the interrogations of the boys, and the City of Oceanside. In addition, prosecutors Gary Hoover and Summer Stephan are also named as defendants, although plaintiffs settled with defendant Hoover prior to the entry of this order. Finally, plaintiffs named as a defendant the National Institute for Truth Verification, the manufacturer of a device, known as a “CVSA,” which is marketed as a “truth verification device” and which was used during the interrogations of the boys. The court previously ruled on a motion for summary judgment brought by the National Institute for Truth Verification.

Defendants have brought a total of 10 motions for summary judgment and/or motions for partial summary judgment, which are the subject of the present order. The court has held numerous hearings and has ordered numerous supplemental briefs. The papers in this case fill 66 volumes at the clerk’s office. The court has reviewed everything that has been placed before it, including approximately 40 hours of videotaped interrogations of the boys, along with videotaped interviews of Judith Kennedy and Stephen and Cheryl Crowe. The court has viewed the actual crime scene photographs as well as a videotape of the Crowe residence taken by the police after the murder. It cannot be emphasized enough that a review of all of these materials is absolutely necessary to gain a true understanding of the actual facts in this case, for certain of the parties’ papers would mislead a reader who was not thoroughly familiar with the actual evidence of record. The court notes throughout this order only some of the instances where the evidence is not as it is portrayed. It is upon the court’s thorough examination of the actual evidence presented, in conjunction with its exhaustive review of the applicable law, that this decision is based.

The court notes that it has attempted to analyze each claim in detail, both with respect to the factual predicates of the claim as well as with respect to the defendants named in the claim. For example, the court has separately analyzed each of the challenged arrests and searches upon which the Treadways’ and Housers’ Fourth Amendment claims are predicated. Similarly, the court has analyzed each of the statements uttered by defendant Stephan which plaintiffs contend were defamatory. Moreover, it has separately analyzed the liability of the individual defendants — Blum, McDonough and Sweeney — who have filed summary judgment motions contending that they did not play a sufficient role in the alleged violations to warrant the imposition of liability. The structure of the analysis

*1063

necessarily results in a certain amount of redundancy, but it is hoped that this manner of analysis will make it clear to all which claims and which defendants remain in this action as well as the reason for the court’s decision.

When reading this decision, one must keep in mind that this is a decision regarding whether defendants may be held civilly liable for the manner in which they conducted the investigation of Stephanie’s

murder•.

The court is deciding whether to grant or deny the motions for summary judgment. It is not determining who killed Stephanie Croiue, and none of the statements in this opinion should be considered a commentary regarding who may or may not be the killer.

Finally, although the court regrets that it may seem to the parties that the decision was a longtime coming, the words of a great Chicago trial judge, Judge Prentice Marshall, have never rung more true: “Please remember that all of these papers must pass through the very small eye of a very small needle — me.”

6

ANALYSIS

I. First Claim for Relief — Violation of the Fourth Amendment

In their first claim for relief, plaintiffs allege that defendants Blum, Wrisley, Sweeney, Claytor, McDonough and Anderson violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by arresting the boys and conducting searches without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits searches and arrests without probable cause.

Beck v. Ohio,

379 U.S. 89, 90-91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964);

McKenzie v. Lamb,

738 F.2d 1005, 1007-1008 (9th Cir.1984). “The long-prevailing standard of probable cause protects ‘citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime,’ while giving ‘fair leeway for enforcing law in the community’s protection.’ ”

Maryland v. Pringle,

— U.S.-,-, 124 S.Ct. 795, 798 , 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (quoting

Brinegar v. United States,

338 U.S. 160, 176 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)). Searches and arrests without probable cause give rise to a cause of action for damages.

See McKenzie,

738 F.2d at 1007 (arrests without probable cause give rise to a § 1983 damages action);

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388, 395 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (constitutional damage action for unlawful arrest under color of federal law);

Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County,

192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir.1999) (§ 1983 damage action arising out of unlawful searches and seizures).

Defendants Blum, McDonough and Sweeney have each filed individual motions for summary judgment challenging the claims of all three sets of plaintiffs on the grounds that they were not sufficiently involved in the challenged searches and seizures to justify the imposition of § 1983 liability for the alleged Fourth Amendment violations. In addition, defendant Sweeney joins with defendants Wrisley, Clay-tor, and Anderson in seeking summary judgment with respect to the Treadways’ and Housers’, but not the Crowes’, Fourth Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds.

A. Defendant Blum’s Motion for Summary Judgment

It is undisputed that defendant Blum, a psychologist in private practice, did not physically participate in the arrests of the boys or the searches of their resi-

*1064

denees.

See

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Blum’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of MSJ p. 2 ¶ 1; p. 8, ¶ 10. Rather, the Escondido defendants, who were undisputedly acting under color of state law, conducted the searches and arrests.

See King v. Massarweh,

782 F.2d 825, 828-829 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs’ injuries were clearly the result of state action where state police officers conducted the arrests and searches). Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold a private individual liable under § 1983 and the alleged constitutional injury is “clearly the result of state action,” the relevant inquiry is not whether the private actor acted “under color of state law” but rather whether the private actor “is sufficiently connected with the clear state action in this case to have caused these acts to occur within the meaning of section 1983.”

Id.

at 828-9. In other words, “[i]n order for a private individual to be liable for a § 1983 violation when a state actor commits the challenged conduct, the plaintiff must establish that the private individual was the proximate cause of the violations.”

Franklin v. Fox,

312 F.3d 423, 445-446 (9th Cir.2002).

In order to demonstrate that a private party was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs constitutional injuries, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the private party had control over the state officials’ decision to commit the act alleged to have violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights.

See Franklin,

312 F.3d at 446 (“ ‘[Ajbsent some showing that a private party had some control over state officials’ decision [to commit the challenged act], the private party did not proximately cause the injuries stemming from [the act].’ ”) (quoting

King,

782 F.2d at 829 );

see also Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp.,

637 F.2d 1350, 1356-6 (9th Cir.1981) (private party defendants entitled to summary judgment where plaintiff presented no evidence that defendants had “some control or power over” the state actors or that the defendants “directed” the state actors to take action against him). Here, there is absolutely no evidence that defendant Blum had any control over the other defendants’ decision to conduct the challenged searches and arrests. Accordingly, as a matter of law, defendant Blum did not proximately cause any Fourth Amendment violation and thus is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims of all three boys.

B. Defendant McDonough’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The following facts are undisputed:

Defendant McDonough is a police officer with the City of Oceanside. Defendant McDonough was trained on the use of a “truth verification device” known as a “CVSA.” On January 22, 1998, defendant McDonough responded to a call by the Escondido Police Department requesting that he conduct a CVSA examination on plaintiff Michael Crowe. Prior to January 22, 1998, defendant McDonough had never personally met defendants Claytor, Wrisley or Anderson and had only spoken with Barry Sweeney regarding past robbery cases.

See

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Chris McDonough’s Separate Statement in Support of Motion

for

Summary Adjudication/Judgment as to All Claims Asserted by Plaintiffs Michael Crowe, Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway p. 3, ¶ 4. This was the first time that defendant McDonough assisted another agency with the CVSA.

Id.

p. 5, ¶ 16.

Defendant McDonough questioned Michael Crowe on January 22, 1998 and utilized the CVSA device.

Id.

p. 6, ¶ 23. Afterward, defendant McDonough did not advise or recommend a course

of

action; specifically, he did not advise or recommend that Michael be arrested.

Id.

p. 7, ¶ 27. Defendant McDonough was not at the Escondido Police Department between January 22, 1998 and January 27, 1998.

*1065

Id.

p. 8, ¶ 31. Defendant McDonough was not present for, nor was he consulted regarding,-the January 23, 1998 questioning of Michael.

Id.

p. 8, ¶ 30. Defendant McDonough did not arrest Michael and was not present when Michael was arrested on January 23, 1998.

Id.

p. 6, ¶22. Defendant McDonough did not participate in a search of the Crowe property, nor did he “suggest, advise or counsel any law enforcement officer to search any portion of the Crowe property.”

Id.

p. 5, ¶¶ 19, 20.

On January 28, 1998, defendant McDon-ough received a telephone call requesting that he assist the Escondido Police Department by administering a CVSA test on plaintiff Joshua Treadway.

Id.

p. 8, ¶ 32. At that time, Joshua had already been placed under arrest by the Escondido Police Department for stealing a knife.

Id.

p. 8, ¶ 35. Defendant McDonough did not participate in the search of the Treadway residence on January 27, 1998, nor was he consulted regarding the search.

Id.

p. 10, ¶¶ 44, 45. Defendant McDonough did not “suggest, advise, or counsel any law enforcement agency to search the Treadway residence.”

Id.

p. 10, ¶ 46.

Defendant McDonough was not present when plaintiff Aaron Houser was interviewed on January 27, 1998, nor was he consulted regarding the interview of Aaron on that date.

Id.

p. 11, ¶ 49, 50.

Defendant McDonough “responded to the Escondido Police Department again on February 10, 1998” to question plaintiff Joshua Treadway.

Id.

p. 11, ¶ 51. Defendant Claytor made the decision to administer the CVSA to Joshua on February 10, 1998.

Id.

p. 11, ¶ 52. Although the reason why is disputed, it is undisputed that defendant McDonough suggested that Joshua be allowed to go home after the February 10, 1998 questioning.

Id.

p. 12, ¶ 54.

The decision to arrest plaintiff Aaron Houser was made by defendants Claytor and Anderson and another officer named Bass.

Id.

p. 12, ¶ 56. On February 11, 1998, defendant McDonough “responded to the Escondido Police Department to question Aaron Houser.”

Id.

p. 12 ¶ 58. The decision to administer the CVSA to Aaron was made by defendant Claytor.

Id.

p. 13, ¶ 60. Defendant McDonough did not arrest Aaron, and Aaron was already under arrest by the time defendant McDonough arrived at the Escondido Police Department on February 11, 1998.

Id.

p. 13, ¶¶ 62, 69. Defendant McDonough did not participate in a search of the residences of Margaret Houser or Gregg Houser, and defendant McDonough did not suggest, advise or counsel any law enforcement agency to search those residences.

Id.

p. 14, ¶¶ 67, 68.

Although it is undisputed that defendant McDonough did not directly participate in the challenged arrests or searches, plaintiffs seek to hold defendant McDonough liable under a conspiracy theory. Plaintiffs speculate

7

that it was Tuite who

*1066

closed the door as Officer Walters sat in his patrol car outside the Crowe residence and that had Officer Walters gotten out of his car to investigate the closing door, Stephanie’s murder would have been prevented. Accordingly, plaintiffs contend that defendants entered into a conspiracy to protect Officer Walters and the Escondido Police Department from criticism. Plaintiffs alternatively characterize the conspiracy as a “scheme to blame and punish the boys,”

8

a conspiracy “to coer-cively interrogate, arrest and incarcerate” the boys,

9

a “conspiracy to wrongfully convict and incarcerate the boys for Stephanie’s murder,”

10

and a conspiracy “to coer-cively interrogate, arrest and incarcerate Michael Crowe along with two of his friends, Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser....”

11

As Judge Posner explained in

Jones v. City of Chicago,

856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir.1988), in a § 1983 constitutional-tort case, “the function of conspiracy doctrine is merely to yoke particular individuals to the specific torts charged in the complaint.” To be liable based upon participation in a conspiracy, “each participant in the conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy.”

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp.,

865 F.2d 1539, 1541 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc);

see also Gilbrook v. City of Westminster,

177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir.1999). To prove a conspiracy, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of “ ‘an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights.’ ”

United Steelworkers,

865 F.2d at 1540 -1 (quoting

Fonda v. Gray,

707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir.1983)). The evidence of the agreement or “meeting of the minds” must be “ ‘concrete.’ ”

Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d

772, 782 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting

United Steel Workers,

865 F.2d at 1540-1, 1543 ). Nonetheless, the evidence of such an agreement or “meeting of the minds” may be circumstantial rather than direct.

See Gilbrook,

177 F.3d at 856-57 (“A defendant’s knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and from evidence of the defendant’s actions.”). For example, a showing that the alleged conspirators have committed acts that “are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement” may

*1067

allow a jury to infer the existence of a conspiracy.

Kunik v. Racine

County, 946 F.2d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir.1991).

Certainly, given the extent of defendant McDonough’s participation in the interrogations of the boys, a reasonable factfinder could find that there was a “meeting of the minds” between defendant McDonough and the other defendants regarding the coercion of a confession from the boys. However, to hold defendant McDonough liable under a conspiracy theory for searches and arrests which he did not direct or execute, plaintiffs must demonstrate that he shared the common objective of the larger conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs: a conspiracy to wrongfully prosecute and convict the boys.

See

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Chris McDon-ough’s Motion for Summary Adjudication/Judgment as to all Claims by Michael Crowe, Aaron Houser and Joshua Tread-way p. 13:24-25. (referring to “defendants’ conspiracy to wrongfully convict and incarcerate the boys for Stephanie’s murder”);

United Steelworkers,

865 F.2d at 1541 (to be liable under a conspiracy theory, “each participant in the conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan,

but each participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy

”) (emphasis added).

Although, as noted

supra,

“[a] defendant’s knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and from evidence of the defendant’s actions,”

Gilbrook,

177 F.3d at 856-7 , there is absolutely no concrete evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, from which an inference can be drawn that defendant McDonough was a member of such a broad conspiracy. Defendant McDon-ough did not work for the Escondido Police Department, did not have a prior personal or professional relationship with any of the defendants, was requested by the Escondido Police Department because of his training'with the CVSA device, and undisputedly did not participate in any of the searches or arrests or in any of the decisions to search or arrest.

Moreover, even if a factfinder were to find that defendant McDonough participated in the coercion of confessions from the boys, in light of all of the facts, the act of coercing a confession is not the type of act that is “unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement” to violate the boys’ constitutional rights on the larger scale alleged by plaintiffs.

Kunik,

946 F.2d at 1580 .

Because there is absolutely no basis for inferring that defendant McDonough, a police officer with the City of Oceanside, joined a conspiracy whose objective was, as alleged by plaintiffs, to wrongfully prosecute and convict the boys in order to protect the Escondido Police Department from criticism, defendant McDonough is entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of the Fourth Amendment claims asserted by plaintiffs.

C. Defendant Sweeney’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant Sweeney moves for summary judgment with respect to the boys’ claims that they were arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment on the ground that he “did not conduct any of the interrogations that led to the arrest of’ the boys and he “did not arrest any of them and was not involved in the decision to arrest them.” Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Barry Sweeney’s MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment p. 8:12-14. Similarly, he moves for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims that the searches were not supported by probable cause on the ground that he did not obtain the search warrants.

See

Memorandum of

*1068

Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Barry Sweeney’s MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment p. 8:20. However, Sweeney fails to address the conspiracy allegations leveled against him. Accordingly, defendant Sweeney’s individual motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims.

D. The Escondido Defendants’ (Clay-tor, Wrisley, Anderson and Sweeney) Motion for Summary Judgment

The Escondido defendants move for summary judgment with respect to the Treadways’ and Housers’ Fourth Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds. Curiously, with respect to the Houser plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, the Escondido defendants nowhere argue that there was probable cause for Aaron Houser’s arrest and the searches of the Houser residence and Aaron’s locker, while with respect to the Treadway plaintiffs’ claims, they give only lip service to the argument that there was probable cause for the searches and seizures. Because Supreme Court case law dictates that the first step in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether there has been a constitutional violation,

see Saucier v. Katz,

533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the court will determine whether the arrests and searches were supported by probable cause despite defendants’ failure to do so.

See Doe v. Lebbos,

348 F.3d 820, 828 (9th Cir.2003) (“We note that the parties did not brief the issue of whether Herrera’s alleged actions, if proven, violated a constitutional right. We are obligated under

Saucier,

however, to address this issue at the outset of our qualified immunity analysis.”).

Qualified immunity “is an

immunity from suit

rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.”

Mitchell v. Forsyth,

472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Thus, “[t]he question of immunity is not to be ‘routinely place[d] ... in the hands of the jury.’ ”

Lindsey v. Shalmy,

29 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting

Hunter v. Bryant,

502 U.S. 224, 227 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991)). That the issue of qualified immunity is not to be routinely placed in the hands of a jury was re-emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in

Saucier.

In that case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the Ninth Circuit’s former practice of denying summary judgment “any time a material issue of fact remains” because such a practice “could undermine the goal of qualified immunity to ‘avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.’ ”

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting

Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)).

Thus, after

Saucier,

whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. In the first step, the court considers whether a constitutional right was violated by the officer’s conduct, viewing the facts regarding the officer’s conduct in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

See Graves v. City of Coeur D’Alene,

339 F.3d 828 , 846 (9th Cir.2003);

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 201 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . The second step is to determine whether the law governing the officer’s conduct “ ‘was clearly established.’ ”

Graves,

339 F.3d at 846 (quoting

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 201 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 ). “Whether the law was clearly established is a pure question of law for the court to decide.”

Carnell v. Grimm,

74 F.3d 977, 978 (9th Cir.1996). The clearly-established inquiry, “it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the

*1069

specific context of the case,

not as a broad general proposition.” Saucier,

533 U.S. at 201 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 (emphasis added). Thus, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry” is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Id.

at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . “The inquiry is not ‘whether another reasonable or more reasonable interpretation of events can be construed... after the fact.’ ”

Reynolds v. County of San Diego,

84 F.3d 1162 , 1170 (9th Cir.1996),

overruled on other grounds by

114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting

Hunter,

502 U.S. at 228 , 112 S.Ct. 534 ). “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

In the Fourth Amendment context, it is “inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present,” and “in such cases those officials — like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful-should not be held personally liable.”

Anderson v. Creighton,

483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). As the Ninth Circuit aptly noted in

Smiddy v. Varney,

665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir.1981), “[i]t is necessary that police officers be immune when they reasonably believe that probable cause existed, even though it is subsequently concluded that it did not, because they ‘cannot be expected to predict what federal judges frequently have considerable difficulty in deciding and about which they frequently differ among themselves.’ ”

Id.

at 266 (quoting

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

456 F.2d 1339, 1349 (2d Cir.1972) (Lumbard, J., concurring)). Thus, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages arising out of a Fourth Amendment violation if a reasonable officer possessing the same facts as the defendant officer could have reasonably believed that the search or arrest was supported by probable cause even if a court later determines it was not.

See Bilbrey v. Brown,

738 F.2d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1984) (“Appellees could therefore qualify for immunity from damages if they reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that they had reasonable cause or probable cause to search appellants.”);

Forster v. County of Santa Barbara,

896 F.2d 1146, 1147-1148 (9th Cir.1990) (finding an officer is “qualifiedly immune from a suit for damages ... unless ‘a reasonably well trained officer in [his] position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant’ ”) (quoting

Malley v. Briggs,

475 U.S. 335, 345 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)).

Importantly, a police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to the qualified immunity analysis.

See Anderson,

483 U.S. at 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 (“The relevant question in this ease, for example, is the objective ... question whether a reasonable officer could have believed Anderson’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. Anderson’s subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.”). Moreover, for summary judgment purposes, “[t]he fact that an expert disagrees with the officer’s actions does not render the officer’s actions unreasonable.”

See Reynolds,

84 F.3d at 1170;

see also Billington v. Smith,

292 F.3d 1177, 1189 (9th Cir.2002).

1. January 26 Search of the Treadway Residence (17%7 Jeffrey Avenue)

Detective Han obtained a search warrant for a search of the Treadway residence on January 26 and executed the warrant on January 27 at approximately 8:30 p.m. The following facts were included

*1070

in the affidavit in support of the search warrant:

Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death. Her wounds were consistent with being stabbed with a knife with a 5-6 inch blade. Defendant Claytor told Detective Han that when he interviewed Michael Crowe on January 26, 1998, Michael Crowe said that Joshua Treadway was his best friend. Defendant Claytor told Detective Han that Michael Crowe called Joshua Treadway from the police department and told him that Stephanie’s body had been found. Det. Lan-nigan told Detective Han that he had interviewed Joshua Treadway at his residence on January 22 and saw a knife at the residence in the living room on the couch. The knife had a black leather-wrapped handle with a hand guard and a 5-6 inch blade. Michael Crowe was arrested and charged with Stephanie’s murder on January 23.

12

Probable cause to search exists when, given the totality of the circumstances, it is fairly probable that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. See

United States v. Ocampo,

937 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir.1991);

see also Alabama v. White,

496 U.S. 325, 330 , 110 S.Ct. 2412 , 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990) (“We have held that probable cause means ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.’ ”) (quoting

Illinois v. Gates,

462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). The evidence must simply demonstrate a “probability” of criminal activity, not a prima facie showing, and the evidence “need not be admissible, but only legally sufficient and reliable.”

Franklin,

312 F.3d at 438 .

Based on the fact that Michael Crowe had been arrested for Stephanie’s murder, that Joshua Treadway was Michael’s best friend, and that Detective Lanigan had seen a knife fitting the description of the murder weapon at the Treadway residence immediately after the murder, there was a fair probability that evidence related to the murder would be found in the Treadway home. However, the constitutionality of a search is not conclusively established simply because the facts in the affidavit in support of the warrant support a finding of probable cause. In determining whether there is probable cause to search, it is relevant whether the affidavit in support of the warrant contained material misrepresentations, be it affirmative misrepresentations or misrepresentations by omission. The issue of the materiality of alleged misrepresentations, is, at the summary judgment stage, an issue of law for the court.

Hervey v. Estes,

65 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir.1995). Affirmative misrepresentations are material, and therefore the Fourth Amendment is violated, only if there is no probable cause absent consideration of the misrepresented facts.

See Franks v. Delaware,

438 U.S. 154, 171-2 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). A misrepresentation based on an omission is material, and therefore the Fourth Amendment is violated, only where the omitted facts “ ‘cast doubt on the existence of probable cause.’ ”

United States v. Garza,

980 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting

United States v. Dennis,

625 F.2d 782, 791 (8th Cir.1980)). However, even if a plaintiff is able to demonstrate that a warrant was issued as the result of a material misrepresentation, a police officer defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds unless the plaintiff can also dem

*1071

onstrate that the police officer deliberately falsified information presented to the magistrate or recklessly disregarded the truth.

See Hervey,

65 F.Sd at 789 (a defendant police officer is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds unless “the plaintiff can

both

establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without the dishonestly included or omitted information, the magistrate would not have issued the warrant”). Thus, resolution of defendants’ summary judgment motion requires consideration of the alleged misrepresentations identified by plaintiffs.

(a) The Location of Stephanie’s Body

The Treadway plaintiffs contend that the judge who issued the warrant for the search of them residence was misled about Michael Crowe’s involvement in the murder, which involvement was material to the issuance of the warrant for the search of the Treadway residence. In particular, the Treadway plaintiffs argue that defendants misled the judge about Michael’s involvement by failing to inform the judge about the correct position of Stephanie’s body upon her death. The position of Stephanie’s body was relevant to the question of whether Michael had told the police the truth when he said that he had gotten up at 4:30 a.m. to take some Tylenol for a headache and had noticed that Stephanie’s bedroom door was closed. Defendants maintain that Stephanie’s door was not closed at 4:30 a.m., but that, in fact, Stephanie was dead in the doorway to her bedroom with the door open, and that Michael’s statement to the contrary thus directed suspicion toward him. In fact, defendant Anderson testified at his deposition that part of the reason why the Escondido defendants believed that probable cause existed to arrest Michael Crowe was that he said that the door was shut at 4:30 a.m. while defendants believed that the door was open at that time and that Stephanie was lying dead in the doorway.

See

Phillip Anderson DT pp. 132:26-133:8 (Exhibit 15, Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). Plaintiffs, however, contend that Stephanie died inside her bedroom with the door closed and that, therefore, Michael told the truth when he said that Stephanie’s door was closed when he got up at 4:30 a.m. According to plaintiffs, defendants knew that Stephanie died inside her bedroom and should have presented this fact to the judge when obtaining the warrant. Plaintiffs contend that the omission of this fact in the warrant was material.

In determining the materiality of this alleged omission, the proper focus is not on the actual position of Stephanie’s body but rather on the facts that defendants had in their possession regarding the position of Stephanie’s body.

See Sheik-Abdi v. McClellan,

37 F.3d 1240, 1246 (7th Cir.1994) (“In recognition of the endless scenarios confronting police officers in their daily regimen, courts evaluate probable cause ‘not on the facts as an omniscient observer would perceive them but on the facts as they would have appeared to a reasonable person

in the position of the arresting officer

— -seeing what he saw, hearing what he heard.’ ”) (quoting

Mahoney v. Kesery,

976 F.2d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir.1992));

see also Anderson,

483 U.S. at 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 (in determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages arising out of a search or arrest, the court must consider what facts the defendant officer possessed, and then determine whether a reasonable officer possessing the same facts as the defendant officer could have believed that the search or arrest was supported by probable cause).

On this record, it is undisputed that Stephanie died between 10:00 and 11:00

*1072

p.m.

See

Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ, Fact 17. Moreover, it is undisputed that Stephanie’s bedroom door opens into a small alcove directly across from Michael’s bedroom door. Although a cliche it may be, the old saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” still applies. The court has viewed the crime scene photographs, and in those photographs Stephanie is lying in the doorway of her bedroom,

ie.,

the lower half of Stephanie’s body is inside the bedroom while her head is clearly outside the bedroom, and the door is very clearly open. John Peters, one of the paramedics who first arrived on the scene, testified in his deposition that he found Stephanie in the position that she is shown in the crime scene photographs. See Peters DT p. 48:6-8 (Exhibit M, attached to Response of Defendant Barry Sweeney to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reference to the Evidence in Opposition to MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment). Steve Mandich, another paramedic on the scene with Peters, similarly testified at his deposition that the crime scene photographs accurately reflect his memory of where he saw Stephanie’s body upon his arrival.

13

See Man-dich DT p. 49:1-19 (Exhibit N, attached to Response of Defendant Barry Sweeney to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reference to the Evidence in Opposition to MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment). It is further undisputed that defendant Sweeney arrived on the scene after Peters and Mandich, and therefore defendant Sweeney necessarily viewed Stephanie’s body in the same position in which it was viewed by Peters and Mandich — in the doorway. Moreover, it is without doubt that it would be physically impossible for the door to be closed with Stephanie’s body in the position reflected by the photographs, and no reasonable factfinder could possibly find otherwise. Thus, given the undisputed time of Stephanie’s death, unless Stephanie’s body was moved between the time that it was discovered by Judith Kennedy and the time Stephanie was viewed by Peters, Mandich and Sweeney

and defendants knew or had reason to know that the body was moved,

defendants could not have known or had reason to know that Stephanie was not lying in the doorway of her bedroom when Michael got up to go to the kitchen at 4:30 a.m. Without such knowledge, defendants cannot be held liable for basing their probable cause determination on Stephanie’s body being in the doorway of her bedroom.

See Sheik-Abdi,

37 F.3d at 1247 (explaining that the test for probable cause “is an objective one — it is ‘what the police know, not whether they know the truth, that matters’ ”) (quoting

Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc.,

797 F.2d 432, 439 (7th Cir.1986)).

Having carefully combed the voluminous record, the court concludes that no reasonable factfinder could find that defendants knew or had reason to know that Stephanie’s body was moved and therefore was

*1073

not lying in the doorway at 4:30 a.m. as it was at the time the crime photos were taken. First, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that any of the members of the Crowe family moved Stephanie’s body between the time it was discovered and the time that the paramedics arrived or, more importantly, that they informed defendants or anyone associated with the investigation that they had moved the body. In fact, Judith Kennedy specifically testified at her civil deposition that she did not move Stephanie’s body.

See

Judith Kennedy DT p. 16:1-4 (Exhibit D, Response of Defendant Barry Sweeney to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reference to the Evidence in Opposition to MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment). Moreover, Cheryl Crowe drew a diagram of the crime scene for defendant Sweeney which a reasonable officer could interpret as showing Stephanie’s body in the doorway of her bedroom with the door open.

See

Exhibit K, attached to Response of Defendant Barry Sweeney to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Reference to the Evidence in Opposition to MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment.

Based upon the above facts, a reasonable factfinder could reach but one conclusion: when defendant Sweeney viewed the body, it was in the same position as when Peters and Mandich viewed the body, which was in the doorway of the bedroom, a position inconsistent with the door being closed. Accordingly, regardless of whether the door was actually open or closed at 4:30 a.m. when Michael Crowe went to the kitchen, on this record, a reasonable police officer could have believed that the door was open and that Stephanie was lying in the doorway, and, thus, a reasonable officer would have been justified in pursuing an investigation and obtaining warrants based on this belief.

See Sheih-Abdi,

37 F.3d at 1247 (explaining that the test for probable cause “is an objective one — it is ‘what the police know, not whether they know the truth, that matters’ ”) (quoting

Gramenos,

797 F.2d at 439 ).

Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, Judith Kennedy’s statements to Wrisley during her January 21 interview cannot reasonably be interpreted as putting defendants on notice that in fact the door to the bedroom was closed when Stephanie was found. Specifically, the court notes the following colloquy, which occurred between defendant Wrisley and plaintiff Kennedy:

W: When you got up due to the alarm and you went out and you found Stephanie in the doorway I guess there—

K: Uh-huh [yes]

14

W. Did you go into her room at all?

K: No, I just stepped inside and I saw her laying there and I thought this is — something’s wrong here....

Having reviewed this portion of the videotape, it is clear that Kennedy did not correct defendant Wrisley when he referred to Stephanie being “in the doorway” and that Kennedy answered “no” to the question of whether she went into Stephanie’s room. It is undisputed' that, unlike Michael Crowe’s bedroom door, Stephanie Crowe’s bedroom door did not open directly into the main hallway, but opened into a small alcove that connected Stephanie’s bedroom to the main hallway. Thus, it was entirely reasonable for defendant Wrisley to believe that Kennedy was referring to “stepping inside” the alcove and not Stephanie’s bedroom. In addition, even assuming that Ms. Kennedy’s cryptic

*1074

statement to defendant Wrisley could be interpreted as a statement that the door was closed, this statement would have been immaterial to the judge’s probable cause determination given all of the evidence regarding the position of Stephanie’s body which suggested that the door was not closed and the absence of any evidence that the body had been moved.

Moreover, Judith Kennedy’s later testimony at Michael’s 707 hearing and at her deposition in this case that the door to Stephanie’s bedroom was closed does not change the analysis. This testimony is inconsistent with her prior statements to police as well as with all of the physical evidence, and, in any event, this testimony came after the challenged searches and arrests and therefore this information was not in defendants’ possession at the time of the challenged searches and arrests.

Finally, no reasonable factfinder could find that defendant Sweeney’s admission in his deposition that Fire Department Captain Keck wrote a report stating that Stephanie’s head was inside the doorway of her bedroom establishes that defendants knew or had reason to know that Stephanie’s door was closed at 4:30 a.m.

See

Sweeney DT p. 575:3-9 (Exhibit 1, [Houser] Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s MSJ). First, plaintiffs fail to note that Sweeney also testified that Captain Keck admitted that this statement was inaccurate. Second, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Captain Keck had first-hand knowledge of where Stephanie’s body was found so that it would have been reasonable for defendants to take into account Keck’s account of the position of the body. Third, there is no evidence that defendants had knowledge of Keck’s report at the time of the challenged searches and arrests.

In summary, the relevant issue here is not whether Stephanie’s door was open at 4:30 a.m., and nothing in this opinion is to be construed as a finding regarding the position of the door at that time. Rather, the relevant issue here is whether a reasonable police officer could have believed that the door to Stephanie’s bedroom was open at 4:30 a.m. and that she was lying dead in the doorway at that time, and, thus, whether a reasonable officer could have therefore believed that Michael Crowe, who stated that the door was closed, was lying and possibly involved in Stephanie’s murder. On these facts, it was entirely reasonable for defendants to believe that the door to Stephanie’s room was open at 4:30 a.m. and that she was lying dead in the middle of the doorway, and no reasonable factfinder could find otherwise. Accordingly, defendants cannot be held liable for failing to inform the judge that Stephanie died in her bedroom with the door closed because, regardless of where Stephanie actually died and the actual position of the door when she died, there is no basis for concluding that defendants recklessly disregarded the truth when they pursued warrants based on the assumption that Stephanie died in her doorway with the door open and that Michael Crowe was lying about seeing the door closed at 4:30 p.m.

See Hervey,

65 F.3d at 789 (a defendant police officer is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where the omission of information was not the result of a deliberate falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth).

(b) Twite’s “Involvement” in Stephanie’s Murder

The Treadway plaintiffs also contend that defendants omitted material information from the warrant application when they failed to include information regarding Tuite’s “involvement” in Stephanie’s murder. This argument fails because the only information regarding Tuite’s

possible

*1075

15

involvement in Stephanie’s murder

which defendants possessed at the time of the challenged searched and seizures

was so speculative that this information did not negate the existence of probable cause for the challenged searches and arrests.

See United States v. Bishop,

264 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir.2001) (“It is well-settled that the determination of probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances

known to the officers at the time of the search.”)

(emphasis added);

see also Grant v. City of Long Beach,

315 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir.2002).

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the materiality of the information in the police officer’s possession is an issue for the court, and questions should be resolved in favor of the police officer.

See Lombardi v. City of El Cajon,

117 F.3d 1117, 1126 (9th Cir.1997). As the Ninth Circuit explained in

Lombardi :

[Pjarticularly where omissions are involved, materiality may not have been clear at the time the officer decided what to include in, and what to exclude from, the affidavit. In such cases,

when it is not plain

that a neutral magistrate would not have issued the warrant, the shield of qualified immunity should not be lost, because a reasonably well-trained officer would not have known that the misstatement or omission would have any effect on issuing the warrant.

Id.

at 1126 (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Tuite had been seen in the area on the night of the murder and that various individuals had called the police to report Tuite because he was knocking on people’s doors looking for a woman named Tracy and did not appear to have any legitimate business in the area. According to some witnesses, Tuite appeared drunk or high and agitated.

See

Sharon Thomas DT p. 16: 22-24; Sheldon Homa DT p. 17:12-15. One witness saw Tuite spinning in circles.

See

Dawn Homa DT pp. 51:11-52:2 The court will assume for purposes of this motion that at all relevant times, defendants were aware of Tuite’s activities on the night of the murder. Clearly, Tuite’s activities in the neighborhood would not “cast doubt” on the existence of probable cause to search the Treadway residence, and therefore would not be material, without additional evidence somehow linking Tuite to the Crowe residence.

In an attempt to show such a link, plaintiffs point to the fact that Officer Walters, who again is not a defendant in this lawsuit, saw the door to the Crowe house close between 9:30 and 9:56 p.m. on the night of the murder after responding to a neighbor’s call regarding Tuite. According to plaintiffs, given Tuite’s activities in .the neighborhood and “the. known [self-reported] whereabouts of everyone in the Crowe house at that time, the only reasonable inference is that Tuite closed the laundry room door.”

See

[Houser] Plaintiffs’ Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition to Escondido Defendants’ MSJ p. 5, n. 4. Therefore, plaintiffs contend, reasonable officers would not have sought warrants to search plaintiffs’ residences (or, had they done so, would have informed the judge about Tuite’s “involvement” in Stephanie’s murder) and also would not have arrested the boys.

The inference that it was Tuite who was closing the door to the Crowe residence when Officer Walters saw the door closing was not necessarily the only inference a reasonable police officer or judge could draw at the time of the challenged searches and seizures. Given Tuite’s behavior as described by witnesses, Tuite would not necessarily be the most likely suspect in a murder committed between

*1076

10:00 and 11:00 p.m. inside a house inhabited by six people and a dog.

16

Moreover, as set forth

supra,

the police had reason to believe that Michael had lied regarding not seeing Stephanie’s body at 4:30 a.m. and therefore had no reason to focus their suspicion on Tuite. In addition, the police had seen a knife matching the description of the murder weapon in the Treadway residence. Finally, a reasonable officer investigating this murder was not required to believe the Crowe families’ statements that none of them closed the door. In sum, at the time of the challenged searches and arrests, there was nothing more than pure speculation linking Tuite to the murder.

17

Because the facts defendants had in their possession regarding Tuite’s activities on the night of the murder would not have cast doubt on the existence of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the failure to include this information in the warrant application.

See Garza,

980 F.2d at 551 . Moreover, this information did not negate the existence of probable cause to arrest Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser.

As an aside, plaintiffs heavily criticize defendants for not more actively pursuing Tuite as a suspect; however, “[t]he police have no affirmative obligation to investigate a crime in a particular way .... ”

Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.,

40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1994). Moreover, the Constitution does not require that police officers thoroughly pursue all possible leads before arresting a suspect.

See Sheik-Abdi,

37 F.3d at 1247 (“Though we have suggested that evidence of interviews and investigations may be a relevant factor in a probable cause analysis, it is not in any way a prerequisite to a finding of probable cause.”) (internal citation omitted);

see also Gomez v. Atkins,

296 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir.2002) (“While officers ‘may not disregard readily available exculpatory evidence ... the failure to pursue a potentially exculpatory lead is not sufficient to negate probable cause.’ ”) (quoting

Wadkins v. Arnold,

214 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir.2000));

Brodnicki v. City of Omaha,

75 F.3d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.1996) (police are not required to investigate alibi of individual before using individual’s statement as the basis for probable cause to arrest another; officers are “not required to conduct a minitrial” before making an arrest).

In any event, Tuite was questioned regarding the murder, and his clothes were taken from him. Although plaintiffs contend that defendants ignored blood evidence on Tuite’s clothes, one should note that Joshua Treadway’s own criminal defense attorney, Mary Ellen Attridge, testified in her deposition that she did not see blood evidence on the shirt when she looked at it.

See

Mary Ellen Attridge DT p. 39: 2-12 (Exhibit 7, NOL of Exhibits in Support

of

Defendant Summer Stephan’s MSJ/Special Motion to Strike/Request for Attorneys Fees and Costs).

Finally, even if defendants were negligent in failing to more vigorously pursue Tuite as a suspect, negligence, even gross

*1077

negligence, does not support a § 1983 claim.

See Davidson v. Cannon,

474 U.S. 344, 347-48 , 106 S.Ct. 668 , 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986);

Jones,

856 F.2d at 992 .

(c) The State of the Windows and Doors

The Treadway plaintiffs contend that defendants omitted material information when they failed to inform the magistrate that some of the windows and doors were unlocked. That certain windows and doors were unlocked is not inconsistent with the boys being involved in the murder and does not necessarily point to Tuite being involved in the murder. Accordingly, had this information been included in the affidavit, it would not have “cast doubt” on the existence of probable cause to believe the murder weapon would be found in the Treadway residence, and therefore this omission was not material.

18

See Garza,

980 F.2d at 551 .

(d) Joshua Treadway’s Alibi

The Treadway plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary notwithstanding, it is immaterial to the probable cause analysis whether Joshua Treadway had an alibi for the time of the murder given that the issue is whether there was probable cause to search the Treadway residence for the murder weapon, which could have been given to Joshua Treadway some time after the murder.

19

Moreover, the Treadway plaintiffs admit that the defendants were not aware at the time of the January 27 search that Joshua had an alibi.

20

(e)The Existence of the Alleged Conspiracy to “Frame” the Boys

Finally, the Treadway plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment by arguing their Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the state court judge was not informed of the alleged “conspiracy to frame Michael and Joshua for Stephanie’s murder.” Treadway Plaintiffs’ Points and Authorities in Opposition to Escondido Defendants’ MSJ p. 27:7-8. Assuming the existence of such a conspiracy, because the test for qualified immunity is an objective one, “the officers’ subjective intent or beliefs are essentially irrelevant .... ”

Alford v. Haner,

333 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir.2003);

see also Anderson,

483 U.S. at 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 (officer’s subjective belief about the search is irrelevant to qualified immunity analysis);

Crawford-El v. Britton,

523 U.S. 574, 588 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (“A defense of qualified immuni

*1078

ty may not be rebutted by evidence that the defendant’s conduct was malicious or otherwise improperly motivated. Evidence concerning the defendant’s subjective intent is simply irrelevant to that defense.”). Given the evidence implicating Michael Crowe and the fact that a knife fitting the description of the murder weapon was seen after the murder at the house of Michael Crowe’s best friend, Joshua Treadway, the existence of such a conspiracy would, under these facts, not have cast doubt on the existence of probable cause to search the Treadway residence and therefore would have been immaterial to the judge’s determination that there was probable cause

to

issue the warrant.

(f) Conclusion

In conclusion, given that a knife fitting the description of the murder weapon was seen in the residence of Joshua Treadway, Michael Crowe’s best friend, and given that the evidence in defendants’ possession suggested that Michael lied about Stephanie’s door being closed at 4:30 a.m. and therefore was involved in the murder, there was a fair probability evidence of the murder would be found in the Treadway residence. This conclusion is not altered by consideration of the additional “evidence” identified by the Treadway plaintiffs. As explained,

supra,

there was no reason for defendants to inform the judge that Stephanie’s body was fully inside her bedroom at the time of her death because all of the information in defendants’ possession suggested otherwise. There was no reason to inform the judge about Tuite’s activities on the night of the murder because defendants did not, at the time, have in their possession sufficient information suggesting that he was involved in Stephanie’s murder. There was no reason to inform the judge that some of the windows and doors were unlocked because such information was not inconsistent with the boys being involved in the murder. There was no reason to inform the magistrate judge that Joshua Tread-way had an alibi on the night of the murder because it was possible that the knife was given to him at some later time. Finally, even if a conspiracy to “frame” the boys existed, the existence of such a conspiracy would not have influenced the judge’s decision to issue the warrant because whether there is probable cause to search depends upon the objective facts, not on an officer’s subjective motives.

Accordingly, there was probable cause to support the search of the Treadway residence, and defendants did not violate the Treadway plaintiffs’ rights.

Moreover, even if it were determined that there was not probable cause, defendants would be entitled to summary judgment under the second prong of the

Saucier

test, as a reasonable officer could have believed that it was constitutionally permissible to seek a warrant in light of the facts known to these defendants. As the Ninth Circuit explained in

Lombardi,

117 F.3d at 1126 , doubt regarding the materiality of omitted information should be resolved in favor of the police officer. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit explained that, although in

Hervey

the police officer’s conduct was “outrageous” and probable cause was clearly lacking without the police officer’s false statements,

in other cases, particularly where omissions are involved, materiality may not have been clear at the time the officer decided what to include in, and what to exclude from, the affidavit. In such cases,

when it is not plain that a neutral magistrate would not have issued the warrant,

the shield of qualified immunity should not be lost, because a reasonably well-trained officer would not have known that the misstatement or omission would have any effect on issuing the warrant.

*1079

Lombardi,

117 F.3d at 1126 (emphasis added). Here, it is far from plain that the judge would not have issued a warrant for the search of the Treadway home had he been informed of the

actual

information in defendant’s possession which was omitted from the affidavit in support of the application for the warrant, detailed

supra,

as opposed to the information alleged by plaintiffs to have been omitted.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

2. January 27 Search of the Houser Residence

On January 27, 1998, Detective Han sought and obtained a warrant to search the Houser residence after Margaret Houser, Aaron Houser’s mother, alerted police to the fact that a knife with a 4-5 inch blade which belonged to her son was missing from his collection. The warrant was sought prior to the time that the knives were found under Joshua Tread-way’s bed. Detective Han executed the warrant. The affidavit in support of the warrant included the following information:

Defendant Claytor told Detective Han that multiple stab wounds were found on Stephanie’s body and those wounds were consistent with a 5-6 inch knife blade. Through interviews, the investigation revealed that Michael Crowe and Aaron Houser are friends. On 1-22-98, detectives Lanigan and Naranjo interviewed Aaron Houser at his residence. Aaron told Detective Naranjo and Lanigan that he and Michael had been friends for over a year and had mutual interest in computer games and in medieval fantasy role play games as well as in weapons, including swords, knives, dirks and daggers. Aaron told the detectives that Michael knew that he had a medieval sword and knife collection but that he had never lent Michael any of-his collection. On 1-27-98, Detective J. Lanigan received a telephone call from Margaret Houser, Aaron’s mother. Margaret Houser told Detective Lanigan that Aaron had checked his medieval sword and knife collection and that one of the knives was missing. The missing knife was described as being stainless steel in color, with black plastic inserts on the handle and a 4-5 inch blade that came to a point and was sharpened. The knife was further described as having a hand stop and has indentations to facilitate a firmer grip.

21

Based on these facts, a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to search the Houser residence, and a state court judge so found. Thus, the issue again is whether defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded the truth by misrepresenting or omitting information from the affidavit and whether it is plain that without the dishonestly-included information, or with the dishonestly-omitted information, the judge would not have issued the warrant.

See Garza,

980 F.2d at 551 ;

Franks,

438 U.S. at 171-2 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ;

Hervey,

65 F.3d at 789 . The Houser plaintiffs fail to explain how that standard is met here.

Although the Houser plaintiffs contend that defendants could not rely on Joshua Treadways’ confession, there is nothing to suggest that Joshua Treadway’s confession was used to establish probable cause to search the Houser residence on January 27. Moreover, as the court has already discussed, at the time this warrant was obtained, the police had information sug

*1080

gesting Michael’s involvement in the murder, and the evidence against Tuite was not so strong as to cast doubt on Michael’s involvement. Therefore, the information regarding Tuite’s activities was not material to the state judge’s decision to approve the warrant, and the Houser plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the omission of such information.

The Houser plaintiffs assert as a statement of fact that “Sweeney lied and orally reported that the doors and windows of the Crowe house were locked.” However, no reasonable factfinder could conclude from reading the portion of the record cited to by the Houser plaintiffs (Sweeney DT pp. 10:3-9; 28:9-20; 38:4-8; 142:17-143:4; 144:7-12 (Exhibit 14, [Houser] Plaintiffs’ NOL in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of Escondido’s Motion for Summary Judgment)) that defendant Sweeney lied and orally reported that the doors and the windows of the Crowe house were locked. Moreover, in any event, even if defendant Sweeney lied about the state of the windows and doors, as stated

swpra,

the fact that some of the windows and doors were unlocked was not inconsistent with the boys’ involvement in the murder and therefore would not have “cast doubt” on the existence of probable cause.

In conclusion, the search of the Houser residence was supported by probable cause and therefore the Houser plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. Alternatively, defendants would be entitled to summary judgment under the second prong of the

Saucier

test, as it would not have been clear to a reasonable officers in possession of the same information as defendants that it was constitutionally impermissible to obtain a warrant to search the Houser residence for the murder weapon by including only the facts included by Detective Han.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

3. February 10 Arrest of Joshua Treadway

Defendant Claytor arrested Joshua Treadway for Stephanie’s murder

on

February 10, 1998. “Probable cause for a warrantless arrest arises when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe ‘that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.’ ”

Barry v. Fowler,

902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting

Michigan v. DeFillippo,

443 U.S. 31, 37 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 , 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979)). In determining whether there is probable cause to arrest, it is not enough to consider only certain facts; rather, the existence of probable cause is determined by reference to all of the facts in the police officer’s possession.

See Garza,

980 F.2d at 550 (“Probable cause exists when,

‘under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers,

a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that [the defendant] had committed a crime.’ ”) (quoting

United States v. Potter,

895 F.2d 1231, 1233-34 (9th Cir.1990) (in turn

quoting United States v. Smith,

790 F.2d 789, 792 (9th Cir.1986))) (emphasis added);

see also United States v. Buckner,

179 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir.1999) (citing

Garza).

Because this was a warrantless arrest and not a search, the court does not look at whether a judge was misled. Rather, the focus is on the facts in defendants’ possession and whether, in light of all of these facts, there was probable cause to arrest, or whether a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest.

The declaration of probable cause to arrest, while not definitive on the issue of probable cause, provides a guide for

*1081

determining the facts in the possession of the police at the time of the arrest. The declaration of probable cause to arrest Joshua Treadway sets forth the fact that Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death in her home, that Michael Crowe had made statements implicating himself in the crime, that Joshua Treadway was Michael’s best friend, that during an interview with Joshua Treadway in his home police observed a knife, that the Treadway house was searched pursuant to a warrant and a knife was found which resembled the knife reported by Aaron Houser as missing from his collection, and that Joshua Treadway subsequently admitted that the knife was the murder weapon, that he was present during plans to kill Stephanie, that he was present at the time of the homicide, and that the plan was for him to dispose of the knife, which he attempted to do.

Based on these facts, a prudent person would be warranted in believing that Treadway was co-conspirator in Stephanie’s murder.

See Barry,

902 F.2d at 773 (“Probable cause for a warrantless arrest arises when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe ‘that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.’ ”) (quoting

DeFillippo,

443 U.S. at 37 , 99 S.Ct. 2627 ). However, the issue is whether a reasonable officer armed with

all

of the knowledge that defendants had at the time of the arrest could have believed that Joshua Treadway was involved in the murder of Stephanie Crowe.

See Garza,

980 F.2d at 550 ;

Buckner,

179 F.3d at 837 (citing Garza).

For the reasons set forth

supra,

the circumstances known to defendants regarding the state of the doors and windows and Tuite’s activities on the night of the murder were not material to the probable cause determination, nor was the alleged existence of a conspiracy to “frame” the boys. Moreover, regardless of whether Michael Crowe actually made incriminating statements, given defendants’ knowledge as to the location of Stephanie’s body and her time of death and Michael’s story that Stephanie’s door was closed at 4:30 a.m., a reasonable officer would have believed there was a fair probability that Michael Crowe was involved in Stephanie’s murder.

In addition, although the statements made during the latter portion of Joshua Treadway’s February 10 interrogation were coerced, the court has concluded after viewing the videotape of this interrogation, and in light of the time that passed since Joshua’s January 27-28 interrogation, that Joshua’s statements up until page 174 of the transcript of the February 10 interrogation were voluntary and not coerced. Joshua’s voluntary statements on February 10 included a statement that Aaron had given him a knife and had told him that the knife was used to kill Stephanie and that Joshua had agreed to hide the knife. Because these statements were voluntary and not coerced, these statements could be used to establish probable cause.

Moreover, even if it were determined that these specific statements were coerced, given that at least one judge has found that none of Treadway’s February 10 statements were coerced,

22

a reasonable

*1082

police officer certainly could have concluded that these particular statements were not coerced, and therefore a reasonable officer could have factored these statements into a probable cause analysis.

Finally, in light of all of the evidence, the fact that Joshua Treadway’s parents could provide him an alibi for the night of the murder does not negate the existence of probable cause to arrest him, as the police are not constitutionally obligated to investigate whether a defendant has an alibi prior to an arrest.

See Brodnicki,

75 F.3d at 1264 . Moreover, it was reasonable to conclude that the murder weapon could have been given to him at some later time, as Joshua initially told police.

In conclusion, in light of all of the information possessed by defendants, a reasonable officer would have believed there was a fair probability that Joshua Treadway was involved in Stephanie’s murder. Because there was probable cause for the arrest, defendants did not violate Joshua Treadway’s rights by arresting him on February 10. Moreover, even if it were determined that there was not probable cause for Joshua Treadway’s arrest, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the

Saucier

test because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer in possession of the same facts as defendants that it was unlawful to arrest Joshua Treadway.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

J.

February 11 Search of the Houser Residence and Aaron Houser’s School Locker

Defendant Claytor obtained the warrant for the February 11 search of the Houser residence. The warrant was obtained telephonieally. The warrant sought knives, knife cleaning equipment and metal cleaning solvents, clothing or objects bearing blood or stains from other bodily fluids, including gloves. The following facts were provided to the judge in support of the warrant application:

Stephanie was stabbed to death in her home. Michael Crowe was arrested after a determination that he was involved in the homicide. Treadway and Houser were his two best friends. During an interview with Joshua Treadway in his home, a knife was seen by the investigating officers. As a result, a warrant was obtained for a search of the Tread-way home. That search revealed a knife that was identified by Aaron Houser as a knife that was missing from his knife collection. A search warrant was obtained for the Houser residence, and a search of the Houser residence revealed numerous knives.

Subsequent interviews were done with Joshua Treadway in regard to the knife. Joshua Treadway indicated that on January 25, 1998 he received the knife from Aaron Houser and was told at that time that the knife was used to kill Stephanie Crowe. Joshua Treadway was given instructions to get rid of the knife. In subsequent interviews Joshua Treadway stated that the death of Stephanie Crowe was actually a planned event that had been discussed two to three weeks prior to the homicide during classes and lunch at Orange Glen high School in the City of Escondido. On the night that the homicide occurred he was in touch with both Aaron Houser and Michael Crowe and was given instructions to go to Aaron’s house and then to Michael Crowe’s house at about midnight on the

*1083

night of the homicide. At that location, Joshua Treadway was given instructions to wait outside and watch for anybody coming by. While he did so, he saw Aaron Houser enter the house, after being let in by Michael Stephen Crowe. As Aaron Houser was entering the house, he was seen taking the knife in question out of his waistband area and entering the house with it in his open hand. Joshua Treadway stated that he did not remain outside but went into the house into a kitchen area. Several minutes later he saw Aaron Houser come into the kitchen with the knife. He saw Aaron Houser rinse the knife off in the kitchen sink. As he leaves with Aaron Houser, Aaron Houser tells Joshua Treadway that Joshua is to get rid of the knife; however, Aaron is going to keep the knife to clean it up, to make sure that the job is done properly. On January 25 Aaron gave Joshua Tread-way the knife, with instructions to get rid of it and clean it. Joshua Treadway stated that during the commission of this homicide, Aaron Houser was seen wearing a dark jacket and dark pants and/or shorts and black gloves, which he describes as gloves that Aaron wore to band practice at school. As a result of the interviews, Joshua Treadway was taken into custody and subsequently taken to San Diego County Juvenile Hall.

23

Clearly, the above facts established probable cause to search. Thus, the issue once again becomes whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant materially misrepresented the facts known to defendants.

Although the reliability of some of the information Claytor included in the warrant is suspect due to the fact that it was obtained as the result of the coercion of Joshua Treadway, as noted,

supra,

during the first part of his February 10 interview, Joshua Treadway told the police that Aaron gave him a knife and told him that the knife was used to kill Stephanie, and this court has determined that these statements were not coerced. Considering only these uncoerced statements, a reasonable officer could have believed that Aaron was involved in Stephanie’s murder and that a search of his residence and locker would yield evidence of the crime.

See Kelley v. Myler,

149 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir.1998) (“[Pjrobable cause does not depend on the witness turning out to have been right; it’s what the police know, not whether they know the truth, that matters.”). Moreover, even if it were determined that these statements were coerced, given that at least one judge has found that none of Treadway’s February 10 statements were coerced,

24

a reasonable police officer certainly could have concluded that Tread-way’s February 10 statements were not coerced and therefore could have factored these statements into a probable cause analysis.

Furthermore, as discussed

supra,

the evidence that the police had with respect to Tuite and the state of the windows and doors was not material to the state judge’s probable cause analysis and therefore did not need to be included in the search warrant. Furthermore, as discussed

supra,

a reasonable officer could have believed that Michael Crowe was involved in Stephanie’s death. Thus, it was not materially misleading to inform the judge that Michael Crowe had been arrested for Stephanie’s murder.

In addition, the Houser plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary notwithstanding, no

*1084

reasonable factfinder could find that defendants misrepresented that Michael and Aaron were friends. Clearly, the fact of the boys’ friendship was material to the issuance of the warrant. However, no reasonable factfinder could find that defendant Claytor deliberately lied or recklessly disregarded the truth when he represented that Michael and Aaron were friends, as it is undisputed that when Ms. Houser called the Escondido Police Department to report Aaron’s missing knife, she informed defendants that Aaron was a friend of Michael Crowe.

25

See Hervey,

65 F.3d at 789 (a defendant police officer is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where the omission of information was not the result of a deliberate falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth).

Finally, the Houser plaintiffs have admitted that the police officers did not know that Aaron Houser had an alibi,

26

and the police are not constitutionally obligated to investigate whether a defendant has an alibi prior to an arrest.

See Brodnicki,

75 F.3d at 1264 . Thus, it was not unreasonable for defendants to fail to inform the judge that Aaron Houser allegedly had an alibi.

In conclusion, in light of all of the evidence known to defendants, including the evidence relied upon by the Houser plaintiffs, a reasonable officer person would have believed there was a fair probability that evidence related to Stephanie Crowe’s murder would be found in the Houser residence and in Aaron Houser’s locker. Therefore, there was probable cause for the searches. However, even if there were no probable cause for the searches, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the

Saucier

test, because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer possessing the same facts as defendants that it was unlawful to obtain these warrants, where there is no evidence that defendants materially misrepresented the facts to the judge who issued the warrant.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

5. February 11 Arrest of Aaron Houser

At the time of Aaron Houser’s arrest, defendants had before them Joshua Treadway’s uncoerced statement that Aaron had given him the knife and had told him that the knife was the knife used to kill Stephanie and that Aaron had participated in the killing with Michael. The police also had reason to believe that Michael Crowe lied about Stephanie’s door being closed at 4:30 a.m. and therefore had reason to believe that Michael Crowe, a friend of Aaron’s, was involved in the mur

*1085

der. Furthermore, police knew that Stephanie was stabbed with a knife that fit the description of Aaron Houser’s knife, which was found under Joshua Treadway’s bed. Based on this information, a prudent person would be warranted in believing that Aaron Houser was involved in Stephanie’s murder. Moreover, for the reasons set forth

supra,

the information defendants had in their possession regarding Tuite, the state of the windows and doors, and the alleged conspiracy would not have cast sufficient doubt on Aaron’s involvement in the murder so as to negate the existence of probable cause.

Because there was probable cause to arrest Aaron, defendants did not violate the Fourth Amendment by arresting him. Alternatively, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the

Saucier

test because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to arrest Aaron in light of the evidence in defendants’ possession.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

6. The “Strip Searches” of the Boys

Defendants move for summary judgment with respect to Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s claims that they were “strip searched” in violation of the Fourth Amendment after their arrests. Although the court has been provided few facts with respect to this claim, the court notes that Joshua Treadway refers in his opposition to being “semi-nude,” which suggests that he was allowed to keep his underwear on.

See

The Treadway Plaintiffs’ Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Escondido ' Defendants’ MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment p. 30:20-21.

To pass constitutional muster, strip searches must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

See Kirkpatrick v. City of Los Angeles,

803 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir.1986). “A reasonable suspicion exists when the person responsible for the search is aware of specific articulable facts, and inferences from those facts, which reasonably warrant a suspicion that evidence will be uncovered.”

Id.

at 490 .

Given the brutality of the murder and the manner in which it was carried out, it certainly would have been reasonable for the police to believe that whoever committed the murder would have cuts, scratches, bruises, or other signs of a physical altercation which would be important evidence at a murder trial. In light of Joshua Treadway’s statements regarding Aaron Houser’s alleged role in the murder and the chilling and graphic statements made by Aaron Houser regarding how he would hypothetically murder Stephanie with a knife, which statements suggested that Aaron Houser had the inner fortitude to commit such a murder, defendants were justified in forming a suspicion that Aaron Houser was involved in the murder and therefore could have scratches, bruises, cuts, or other signs of a physical altercation. Accordingly, defendants were justified in performing a visual search of Aaron Houser in order to determine whether he showed physical signs of an altercation which would corroborate Joshua’s statements and which would need to be preserved for trial by means of photographs.

The court finds that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct a partial strip search of .Joshua Treadway as well.

27

Although Joshua Treadway did not confess to actually stabbing Stephanie, such a con

*1086

fession is not necessary to justify requiring Joshua Treadway to strip down to his underwear for a visual examination, where Joshua Treadway told police that he was present in the Crowe house at the time of the murder, a knife fitting the description of the murder weapon was found under his bed, and the murder was of the type that one could reasonably believe would leave the murderer with cuts, bruises, scratches, or other signs of a physical altercation.

Finally, the court notes that plaintiffs contend that these searches were unreasonable because they occurred almost three weeks after the murder. However, plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence suggesting that physical evidence such as defendants were looking for would not still be visible three weeks later.

Accordingly, the court concludes that defendants did not violate Joshua Tread-way’s and Aaron Houser’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting these searches. However, even if it were determined that there was a Fourth Amendment violation because of the amount of time that passed between the murder and the searches, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second

prong of

the

Saucier

test because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that a visual search of a suspect who has been arrested in a stabbing death is unlawful three weeks after the murder.

Accordingly, the Escondido defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s Fourth Amendment claims to the extent those claims are predicated upon the fact that they were strip searched.

II. Second Claim for Relief — Violation of the Fifth Amendment

In their second claim for relief, the boys allege that defendants Blum, Wrisley, Sweeney, Claytor, McDonough, and Anderson violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Defendants Blum, McDonough and Sweeney have filed motions for summary judgment addressing all three boys’ Fifth Amendment claims. For unknown reasons, defendants Wrisley, Claytor and Anderson challenge only Joshua Tread-way’s and Aaron Houser’s Fifth Amendment claims.

A. Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

As a preliminary matter, as noted

supra,

“[a] defendant’s knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and from evidence of the defendant’s actions.”

Gilbrook,

177 F.3d at 856-57 . On this record, given the manner in which the boys were interrogated and the length of the interrogation, a reasonable jury could find that defendants conspired to coerce confessions from the boys. Nonetheless, defendants may not be held liable simply because they conspired to violate the boys’ Fifth Amendment rights. Rather, in order for the boys to have a viable claim against defendants, the boys must demonstrate that their Fifth Amendment rights were actually violated.

See Landrigan v. City of Warwick,

628 F.2d 736, 742 (1st Cir.1980) (“[W]hile conspiracies may be actionable under section 1983, it is necessary that there have been, besides the agreement, an actual deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.”);

see also Dooley v. Reiss,

736 F.2d 1392, 1395 (9th Cir.1984).

At the time of the boys’ interrogations, Ninth Circuit case law held that a Fifth Amendment violation occurs at the moment police officers coerce a confession from a suspect. However, as will be seen, after the filing of this action, there was a sea change regarding when the Fifth Amendment is actually violated, and in

*1087

light of this sea change, the boys cannot demonstrate a Fifth Amendment violation.

The Fifth Amendment, which applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment,

Malloy v. Hogan,

378 U.S. 1, 5 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), provides that no person “shall be compelled

in any criminal case

to be a witness against himself. ...” U.S. Const. amend. V (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has characterized the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination as a privilege that “protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.”

Kastigar v. United States,

406 U.S. 441, 445 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 , 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The Fifth Amendment’s “sole concern is to afford protection against being ‘forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to ... criminal acts.’ ”

Kastigar,

406 U.S. at 444 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 (quoting

Ullmann,

350 U.S. at 438-9, 76 S.Ct. 497 (in turn quoting

Boyd v. United States,

116 U.S. 616, 634 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886))).

To this end, the Fifth Amendment operates in several distinct ways. First, absent immunity, an individual may assert the privilege against self-incrimination at any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, “wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.”

McCarthy v. Arndstein,

266 U.S. 34, 40 , 45 S.Ct. 16 , 69 L.Ed. 158 (1924). Moreover, an individual may not be held in contempt for refusing to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds, where there is a basis for asserting the privilege, unless the individual is afforded immunity that is eo-extensive with the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment.

See Kastigar,

406 U.S. at 462 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 . Finally, the Fifth Amendment operates to preclude the government’s use of compelled testimony at trial in its case in chief.

See Oregon v. Elstad,

470 U.S. 298, 306-7 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985).

While the manner in which the Fifth Amendment operates to protect an individual from self-incrimination is clear, what is not clear is when the Fifth Amendment is actually violated for purposes of allowing the imposition of liability for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Until recently, the law in the Ninth Circuit was that the Fifth Amendment is violated at the moment police coerce or compel a statement from a suspect, and therefore the Ninth Circuit recognized a § 1983 claim based on mere coercion.

See Cooper v. Dupnik,

963 F.2d 1220, 1243 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc),

overruled by Chavez v. Martinez,

538 U.S. 760 , 123 S.Ct. 1994 , 155 L.Ed.2d 984 (2003). However, a majority of the Justices in

Chavez

rejected

Cooper’s

holding and concluded that the act of coercing a statement from a suspect, in and of itself, is not an act in violation of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause upon which a § 1983 claim may be predicated. Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice and two other Justices, concluded that in order for the Fifth Amendment to be implicated, the suspect must be compelled,

in a criminal case,

to be a witness against himself. These four Justices concluded that there is no criminal case for Fifth Amendment purposes until, at the earliest, “legal proceedings” have been initiated. Justice Thomas explained:

We need not decide today the precise moment when a “criminal case” commences; it is enough to say that police questioning does not constitute a “case” any more than a private investigator’s precomplaint activities constitute a “civil case.”

538 U.S. at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2001 .

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Breyer, provided a slightly different reasoning in support of his conclusion that Martinez

*1088

was not entitled to damages. Justice Souter approached the issue before the Court from a policy perspective, concluding that Martinez’ claim should fail on the ground that Martinez could not “make the ‘powerful showing,’ subject to a realistic assessment of costs and risks, necessary to expand protection of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination to the point of the civil liability he asks us to recognize here.”

Id.

at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2007 . As Justice Souter explained:

If obtaining Martinez’ statement is to be treated as a stand-alone violation of the privilege subject to compensation, why should the same not be true whenever the police obtain any involuntary self-incriminating statement, or whenever the government so much as threatens a penalty in derogation of the right to immunity, or whenever the police fail to honor

Miranda?

Martinez offers no limiting principal or reason to foresee a stopping place short of liability in all such cases.

Id.

at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2007 .

After

Chavez,

it is clear that a § 1983 plaintiff cannot succeed on a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim predicated solely upon coercive police interrogation resulting in an involuntary confession. Thus, to the extent that the boys’ Fifth Amendment claim is predicated solely upon the fact that defendants interrogated them in a manner that produced involuntary confessions, their claims must fail. However, the court must explore

terra incognita

because, unlike in

Chavez,

the boys’ statements here were “used” against them at a grand jury proceeding and also at a proceeding (referred to as a “707 hearing”)

28

which was held in order to determine whether the boys should be tried in adult rather than juvenile court. Thus, assuming for the moment that certain of the boys’ statements were the product of police coercion

29

and that liability for damages under § 1983 can, at least in some circumstances, be predicated upon a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, this court is squarely confronted with the question of whether a “criminal case,” as that term is used in the Fifth Amendment, means “criminal trial,” or whether it encompasses grand jury proceedings and all proceedings that occur after an indictment is handed down.

The court begins by noting that, prior to

Chavez,

the Supreme Court had on more than one occasion characterized the privilege against self-incrimination as a

trial

right.

See Withrow v. Williams,

507 U.S. 680, 692 , 113 S.Ct. 1745 , 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (9th Cir.1993) (“Nor does the Fifth Amendment ‘trial right’ protected by

Miranda

serve some value necessarily divorced from the correct ascertainment of guilt.”). As the Supreme Court explained in

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez,

494 U.S. 259, 264 , 110 S.Ct. 1056 , 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990):

The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental

trial right

of criminal defendants.

Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may

*1089

ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial.

(emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). Although these statements are dicta, they are cited with favor by the plurality in

Chavez.

Moreover, Supreme Court dicta is not easily ignored.

See Laub v. U.S. Dept. of Interior,

342 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir.2003) (“Supreme Court dicta is not to be lightly disregarded.”);

United States v. Baird,

85 F.3d 450, 453 (9th Cir.1996) (“[W]e treat Supreme Court dicta with due deference.... ”);

Zal v. Steppe,

968 F.2d 924, 935 (9th Cir.1992) (“[DJicta of the Supreme Court have a weight that is greater than ordinary judicial dicta as prophesy of what that Court might hold. We should not blandly shrug them off because they were not a holding.”).

Furthermore, a plurality of four justices in

Chavez

suggest, through their own choice of language, that the Fifth Amendment is a trial right.

See Chavez,

538 U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 2004 (Thomas, J.) (“Our views on the proper scope of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause do not mean that police torture or other abuse that results in a confession is constitutionally permissible so long as the statements are not used

at trial;

it simply means that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, would govern the inquiry in those cases and provide relief in appropriate circumstances.”) (emphasis added).

The conclusion that “criminal case” means “criminal trial” is also supported by the Supreme Court’s reasoning in

Lawn v. United States,

355 U.S. 339 , 78 S.Ct. 311 , 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958). In

Lawn ,

the defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it was obtained using their own coerced testimony. The defendants had previously been compelled to appear before a grand jury to testify and produce records while criminal informations charging tax evasions were pending against them without being warned of their Fifth Amendment rights. The defendants were indicted, but the indictments were dismissed. The defendants were then indicted a second time on similar charges. The defendants moved to dismiss the second indictment, contending that the evidence they were previously compelled to present was used to obtain the second indictment. The defendants also sought a hearing so that they could seek evidence in support of their contention.

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of such a hearing. It noted that it had “several times ruled that [an] indictment returned by a legally constituted nonbi-ased grand jury, like an information drawn by a prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for a trial of the charge on the merits and satisfies the requirements of the Fifth Amendment” and concluded that the defendants were not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop the factual basis for their assertions.

Id.

at 349-50 , 78 S.Ct. 311 . Importantly, the Court explained that “[i]t should be unnecessary to say that we are not here dealing with the use of incompetent or illegal evidence

in a trial on the merits,

nor with the right to decline to give incriminating testimony in legal proceedings or to suppress the direct or derivative use

at the trial

of evidence illegally obtained.”

Id.

at 350 , 78 S.Ct. 311 (emphasis added). Thus, the Court clearly distinguished between use of a coerced statement at trial and use of a coerced statement at a grand jury proceeding. The distinction drawn by the Court in

Lawn

further confirms that the Fifth Amendment was directed at preventing convictions, rather than indictments, resulting from coerced statements.

In support of their argument that a criminal case commences with a grand jury proceeding, the boys contend that

*1090

“criminal case” cannot mean “criminal trial” because at the time the Fifth Amendment was passed, defendants could not testify on their own behalf at trial, and therefore the framers could not have been trying to protect an accused from being called as a witness in his criminal trial. This argument is unavailing. At the time the Fifth Amendment was passed, a defendant could be an indirect witness against himself because, as the boys note, it was permissible at trial for another person to testify as to pretrial statements made by the defendant pursuant to questioning.

Finally, there are strong policy reasons for finding that the use of a compelled statement violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only when the statement is used at trial. If federal courts were to recognize a Fifth Amendment violation based upon the use of coerced statements in grand jury proceedings, the result would be that defendants could insist on a “preliminary trial” to determine the validity of the indictment. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected efforts to afford defendants such a right. As the Supreme Court noted in

Costello v. United States,

350 U.S. 359 , 76 S.Ct. 406 , 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956):

If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment.

Id.

at 363 , 76 S.Ct. 406 ;

see also Lawn,

355 U.S. at 350 , 78 S.Ct. 311 . The Court went on in

Costello

to explain that allowing defendants to challenge indictments based on the evidence presented to the grand jury

would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules. Neither justice nor the concept of a fair trial requires such a change. In a trial on the merits, defendants are entitled to strict observance of all the rules designed to bring about a fair verdict. Defendants are not entitled, however, to a rule which would result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial.

Costello,

350 U.S. at 364 , 76 S.Ct. 406 .

Perhaps recognizing the strong policy reasons dictating against a finding that the Fifth Amendment is violated upon the use of a compelled statement in a grand jury proceeding, plaintiffs alternatively argue that a 707 hearing, which necessarily follows rather than proceeds a grand jury proceeding, is a “trial” under California law. For the proposition that courts should look to state law in order to determine whether a proceeding is a trial for Fifth Amendment purposes, the Treadway plaintiffs cite

Hamilton v. Alabama,

368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961). In that case, the court looked to state law to determine whether an arraignment was “a critical stage in a criminal proceeding” so that the defendant was entitled to counsel at his arraignment.

Hamilton

is inapplicable here. As noted

supra,

the Fifth Amendment’s “sole concern is to afford protection against being forced to give testimony

leading to the infliction of penalties

affixed to ... criminal acts.’ ”

Kastigar,

406 U.S. at 444 , 92 S.Ct. 1653 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). A 707 hearing is a hearing to determine in which court — juvenile or adult — -a defendant should be tried. Regardless of how California law might characterize a 707 hearing, it cannot be said

*1091

that the use of a defendant’s testimony at a 707 hearing leads to the infliction of penalties affixed to criminal acts. At most, the use of a defendant’s testimony at a 707 hearing-leads to a determination of the forum in which it will be determined whether penalties will be affixed to the defendant’s criminal acts.

For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that for Fifth Amendment purposes, “criminal case” means “criminal trial,”

i.e.,

a proceeding at which a defendant’s guilt is determined. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by the use of a defendant’s compelled statements unless and until the statements are used against the defendant at trial. Here, the boys’ statements were not used against them at trial. Accordingly, the boys have failed to make out a cognizable § 1983 claim for violation of their Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, and defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim for an additional reason. Legal causation, or proximate cause, is an element of a § 1983 claim that must be proved.

See Baker v. McCollan,

443 U.S. 137, 142 , 99 S.Ct. 2689 , 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (“[A] public official is hable under § 1983 only ‘if he

causes

the plaintiff to be subjected to deprivation of his constitutional rights.’ ”) (quoting

McCollan v. Tate, 575

F.2d 509, 512 (5th Cir.1978)) (emphasis in original);

Arnold,

637 F.2d at 1355 (although “not often discussed or explicitly stated in civil rights cases,” causation is an element of a § 1983 claim that must be proved); Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 11.1 (to prove the violation of a federal civil right, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “the acts or omissions of the defendant were the cause of the deprivation of the plaintiffs rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”). As the Ninth Circuit has explained in

Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978):

A-person “subjects” another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. Moreover, personal participation is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. Anyone who “causes” any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite causation can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury,

(internal citations omitted).

Even if it could be said that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is violated by use of a coerced statement in a grand jury proceeding or a 707 hearing, it cannot be said that a police officer is the proximate cause of such a violation. If a statement is used at a grand jury proceeding or a 707 hearing, it is the prosecutor, not the police officer, who decides to introduce and actually introduces the statement into evidence. Moreover, at a 707 hearing, it is the trial judge who ultimately determines whether the statement will be admitted. Thus, as a matter of law, a police officer himself does not “subject” a defendant to a deprivation of the right against self-incrimination when a coerced statement is admitted at such proceedings.

Moreover, it cannot be said that a police officer “causes” a defendant to be subjected to a violation of the privilege against

*1092

self-incrimination when a coerced statement is admitted at such proceedings. As explained in

Johnson,

588 F.2d at 743 , one causes another to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation “by setting in motion a series of acts by others

which the actor knows or reasonably should know

would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” (emphasis added). Given the roles and obligations of prosecutors and judges and the independent nature

of

these positions, a police officer could not reasonably know that by obtaining a coerced confession he will cause a prosecutor and/or a trial judge to violate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

30

Thus, as a matter of law the police officer defendants are not the proximate cause of the Fifth Amendment violation alleged by the boys.

Practical considerations further support the court’s conclusion that a police officer is not the proximate cause of, and therefore cannot be held civilly liable for, violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination based on the use of a coerced statement in a criminal case. As noted, a majority of Justices in

Chavez

concluded that a police officer may not be held liable merely for engaging in coercive questioning. Simply put, if a police

officer

cannot be held liable for his own act of coercing a confession, there is no principled basis for allowing the officer to be held liable for the prosecutor’s act of introducing the coerced confession in a criminal case, or for the trial court’s act of erroneously allowing the coerced confession to be introduced in a criminal case.

Moreover, as defendants note, allowing the imposition of officer liability for use of a coerced statement by a prosecutor in a criminal case would have the perverse effect of assuring that only the most culpable officers escape civil liability for their actions, for only if a police officer coerces a confession using methods of interrogation that are clearly impermissible under the law will the officer be assured that the trial judge will exclude the confession at trial, thereby assuring that the suspect’s statement will not be “used” in a “criminal case” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this does not mean that there is no recourse when a police officer coerces a confession. A suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights are protected by the rule that a coerced confession may not be introduced in a criminal ease. Moreover, as noted by the plurality in

Chavez

and as will be discussed

infra,

if the

manner

in which a confession is compelled is particularly egregious, the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a remedy.

As for defendant Blum, as noted in section I.A. supra, defendant Blum, as a private actor, is not the proximate cause of a constitutional violation committed by a state actor unless he “had some control over” the state actors’ decision to commit the unconstitutional act. See

Franklin,

312 F.3d at 446 . There is no evidence in the record suggesting that defendant Blum had such control over the police officer defendants.

Finally, Aaron Houser’s Fifth Amendment claim fails for an additional reason. Having reviewed the videotape of the interrogation as well as the transcript of that interrogation, the court concludes that as a

*1093

matter of law, any statements made by Aaron Houser on January 27 or February 11 were not the product of coercion. Moreover, even if Aaron Houser’s statements could be deemed the product of coercion, qualified immunity would be available. In addition to this court’s finding that Aaron Houser’s interrogation was not conducted in a coercive manner and that statements Aaron Houser made to defendants were not the product of his will being overborne, Judge Thompson concluded that Aaron Houser’s statements were not coerced.

See

RT of December 17, 1998 Motion Hearing in

People v. Crowe, et al.

p. 2:5-17 (Exhibit P, attached to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Escondido Defendants’ MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, of the Claims Asserted by the Houser Plaintiffs). If both a state court judge and a federal court judge are able to conclude that Aaron Houser’s statements were not the product of coercion, a reasonable officer certainly could have believed that Aaron’s interrogation was not coercive. For this additional reason, defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Aaron Houser’s Fifth Amendment claim.

B.

Miranda

To the extent that the boys’ § 1988 claims are predicated upon defendants’ questioning of them without first providing

Miranda

warnings, such a claim is not cognizable after

Chavez. See Chavez,

538 U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 2004 (Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices O’Connor and Scalia) (“Chavez’s failure to read

Miranda

warnings to Martinez did not violate Martinez’s constitutional rights and cannot be grounds for a § 1983 action”);

Id.

at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2013 (Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Stevens) (“[F]ailure to give a

Miranda

warning does not, without more, establish a completed violation when the unwarned interrogation ensures.”). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim.

III. Fourth Claim for Relief — Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Clause (“Shocks the Conscience”)

All of the plaintiffs bring claims against defendants Blum, Wrisley, Sweeney, Clay-tor, McDonough and Anderson for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free of government conduct that “shocks the conscience.” Defendants Blum, McDonough and Sweeney seek summary judgment with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants Claytor, Wrisley and Anderson seek summary judgment only with respect to the claims brought by the Treadways and Housers.

31

A. The Treadway and Houser Plaintiffs’ Claims

Although a review of the complaint leaves one wondering about the factual basis underlying the Treadways’ and Housers’ claims, it appears from their oppositions to the motions for summary judgment that these claims are largely predicated upon the interrogations and “strip searches” of the boys.

32

In addition,

*1094

Aaron Houser predicates his claim on the allegations that the Escondido police department lied to the Housers about the purpose of the investigation in order to interrogate Aaron under false pretenses and deceived Aaron by forcing Joshua Tread-way to make a ruse telephone call with the intent of eliciting incriminating statements from him. Aaron also predicates his claim against defendant Blum on the allegation that defendant Blum compared him to Charles Manson and stated to the Escondido defendants that Aaron exhibited “so-ciopathic tendencies.”

“ ‘[I]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision... the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.’ ”

County of Sacramento v. Lewis,

523 U.S. 833, 843 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (quoting

United States v. Lanier,

520 U.S. 259 , 272 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 1219 , 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997)). Thus, to the extent that the boys’ claims are predicated upon their “strip searches,” the constitutionality of which is governed by the Fourth Amendment, such claims must fail.

See Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.2001) (claim that plaintiff was sexually harassed by police after arrest is more appropriately analyzed under the Fourth Amendment).

Defendants contend that plaintiffs are also precluded from predicating their § 1983 claims on the interrogations of the boys because the Fifth Amendment covers claims involving coerced confessions. While that is a fair reading of the court’s previous order, that order was entered without the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in

Chavez.

In

Chavez,

the Supreme Court recognized the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause to claims based upon the manner of an interrogation. As the plurality explained, the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause “would govern the inquiry” in cases involving “police torture or other abuse that results in a confession. ...” 538 U.S. at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2004 (Thomas, J.). Although this plurality did not find that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause was violated under the facts of that case, five justices remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the defendant’s due process claim based on the manner of his interrogation.

33

In light of

Chavez, Lewis

cannot be read as precluding plaintiffs from predicating their due process claims on the manner of the boy’s interrogation.

Although much time and analysis could be spent on the historical development of

*1095

the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process, what matters here is that “the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience [is] necessary for a [substantive] due process violation.”

Lewis,

523 U.S. at 836 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). As the Ninth Circuit explained in

Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871 , 882 n. 7 (9th Cir.2001):

Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process prong, we use the “shocks the conscience” test.

County of Sacramento v. Lewis,

523 U.S. 833 [, 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 ] [parallel citations omitted] (1998).

The threshold question is huhether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience. ’ Id.

at 848 n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 1708 .

(emphasis added);

see also Chavez,

538 U.S. at-, 123 S.Ct. at 2005 (Thomas, J.) (“Convictions based on evidence obtained by methods that are ‘so brutal and so offensive to human dignity’ that they ‘shoc[k] the conscience’ violate the Due Process Clause.”) (quoting

Rochin v. California,

342 U.S. 165, 172 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952)).

A review of Supreme Court case law reveals that an individual must demonstrate more than that police conduct resulted in an involuntary statement to make out a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. For example, in the classic case of

Rochin ,

the Supreme Court concluded that the conduct of the police shocked the conscience, and that the use of the evidence at trial violated the defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, where the police directed a doctor to force an emetic solution through a tube into the defendant’s stomach against his will to obtain evidence.

34

The Supreme Court, which throughout its opinion focused on the physical brutality of the police conduct, noted that the methods by which the evidence was obtained were “too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation.”

Rochin,

342 U.S. at 172 , 72 S.Ct. 205 . Similarly, the plurality in

Chavez

noted that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause remains available in cases involving

“police torture or other abuse

that results in a confession .... ” 538 U.S. at -, 123 S.Ct. at 2004 (Thomas, J.) (emphasis added).

In contrast, in

Moran v. Burbine,

475 U.S. 412, 433-434 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) the court concluded that the failure of the police to inform a suspect of efforts of an attorney, who had been retained by defendant’s sister without his knowledge, to reach him while he was being interrogated fell “short of the kind of misbehavior that so shocks the sensibilities of civilized society” so as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Thus, it is clear that the police can engage in at least some deceptive and coercive behavior during an interrogation without running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It should be noted that eases such as

Spano v. New York,

360 U.S. 315 , 79 S.Ct. 1202 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1959) are not to the contrary. The issue in

Spano

was whether

the admission of a coerced confession at trial

was a violation of the defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Spano

did not hold that the police violate the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause merely by procuring a coerced confession.

*1096

Having viewed the videotaped interviews and interrogations of Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser in their entirety, and having also reviewed the transcripts thereof, the court concludes that defendants’ behavior during the interviews and interrogations, although not commendable, was not “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.”

Fontana,

262 F.3d at 882 n. 7. While it cannot be forgotten that the boys were juveniles at the time of the interrogations, and while some of the interrogations were long, the manner of the interrogations was neither egregious, outrageous, nor shocking. This is not a case of physical or psychological torture. Defendants never yelled at the boys or even raised their voice. The boys were given food and water and bathroom breaks, even if not always immediately. Although the police may have lied at times, such conduct is not outrageous and, in fact, does not even necessarily amount to coercive conduct.

See Pollard v. Galaza,

290 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.2002) (“[W]e have explained that misrepresentations made by law enforcement in obtaining a statement, while reprehensible, does not necessarily constitute coercive conduct.”);

see also United States v. Orso,

266 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2001)

(en banc).

Similarly, it is not outrageous that defendants attempted to extract confessions from the boys by telling them that they could get treatment rather than jail if they confessed given that the Ninth Circuit recently found that similar statements do not even rise to the level of being coercive.

See Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee,

345 F.3d 802, 810 (9th Cir.2003) (“Perez’s suggestion that Cunningham’s cooperation could lead to treatment rather than prison is also not coercive.”). Moreover, although the boys became emotional at times during the questioning, the use of questions that elicit an emotional response does not transform the interrogation into one that “shocks the conscience.”

Cf. Id.

(“Perez’s questions may have unsettled Cunningham, but mere emotionalism and confusion do not invalidate confessions.”). Finally, although defendants employed a “good cop/bad cop” approach during some of the interviews, such a manner of interrogation is relatively common and certainly not shocking, even when juveniles are involved.

Specifically with respect to Aaron Houser, the first questioning was approximately an hour and twenty minutes long. In the videotape, Aaron Houser appears as a confident young man. No aspect of this questioning could be considered coercive, let alone shocking. Although the second questioning was approximately 9 and 1/2 hours long, this fact, even when considered in combination with the above facts, does not render the questioning “egregious,” “outrageous,” or “shocking.”

With respect to Joshua Treadway, the court notes that the length of the questioning was due in large part to the fact that Joshua Treadway continued throughout the questioning to give more and more details regarding the crime, which in turn led to more and questions. The fact that defendants continued to question Joshua Treadway as he slowly gave what appeared to be more and more clues regarding the murder can hardly be deemed “shocking to the conscience.” Moreover, Joshua Treadway’s demeanor at the end of the questioning also supports the conclusion that defendants did not engage in shocking behavior. For example, at the end of the questioning on January 28, Joshua Treadway stated “Not only do I feel like I’m okay, but I feel like I’ve accomplished... I feel like I’ve accomplished something with all this.”

See

Transcript of Police Interview of Joshua Treadway dated 1-27-98 p. 289:49. He later stated “I told all that I knew. And I feel good to have that off my chest.”

Id.

*1097

p. 289: 15-16. Moreover, at the very beginning of the questioning on February 10, Joshua Treadway stated that after the last questioning he felt as if he had “got[ten] rid of a heavy load” and that he felt “relieved.”

See

Transcript of Interrogation of Joshua Treadway dated 2-10-98 p. 8: 8-9, 11. These are not the statements of someone who has undergone an interrogation whose manner was shocking.

Importantly, the facts surrounding the questioning of Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser are quite distinct from the facts surrounding the interrogation in

Chavez.

As in

Rochin ,

the police conduct in

Chavez

was “brutal.”

See Chavez,

538 U.S. at -, 123 S Ct. at 2010 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). “The District Court found that Martinez ‘had been shot in the face, both eyes were injured; he was screaming in pain, and coming in and out of consciousness while being repeatedly questioned about details of the encounter with the police.’ ”

Chavez,

123 S.Ct. at 2017 (Kennedy, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part). At least three Justices concluded that the record supported a finding that the defendant police officer intended to exploit the plaintiff’s physical pain and that the plaintiff “thought his treatment would be delayed, and thus his pain and condition worsened, by refusal to answer questions.”

Id.

at -, 123 S.Ct. at 2017 . The interviews and interrogations in the present case, while not necessarily pleasant, lack such a brutal nature.

In addition, there is nothing shocking about the fact that the police enlisted Joshua Treadway to make a phone call to Aaron Houser in an attempt to elicit incriminating statements from him. Nor is defendant Blum’s comparison of Aaron to Charles Manson or his statement regarding Aaron’s psychological state the type of behavior that is so shocking that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

In summary, the manner in which Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser were interrogated does not approach the type of brutal police conduct that has been found in other cases to be “shocking” and to therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause. Consequently, defendants did not violate Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process. Moreover, even if it were determined that defendants’ conduct did violate the boys’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, a reasonable officer would not have known that the interrogations of the boys amounted to a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process given that the interrogations lacked the brutality that has previously marked the police conduct found by the courts to be “shocking to the conscience.” Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s claims for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free of government conduct that “shocks the conscience.”

The parents of Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser also bring claims for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause. The Tread-way and Houser parents have failed to identify any conduct on the part of defendants that would support their claims other than the conduct identified in support of the Joshua and Aaron’s claims. As noted

supra,

such conduct cannot support a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. Accordingly, even if such a claim can otherwise be predicated upon conduct directed at another, because defendants’ conduct toward Joshua and Aaron was does not “shock the conscience” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, defendants are entitled to summary judg

*1098

ment with respect to the Treadway and Houser parents’ claims as well.

B. The Crowe Plaintiffs’ Claims

Defendants Blum, McDonough and Sweeney move for summary judgment with respect to the Crowe plaintiffs’ claims.

The Crowe plaintiffs claims’ against defendants Blum and McDonough appear to be predicated upon the conduct of Michael’s interrogation. A review of the record reveals no concrete evidence of a conspiracy encompassing the violation of Michael Crowe’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of government conduct that “shocks the conscience” of which these defendants were a part.

Moreover, neither defendant himself directly engaged in conduct that “shocks the conscience.” The purpose of an interrogation is to procure a confession. Therefore, it does not “shock the conscience” that defendant Blum provided the police with advice regarding how to best procure a confession from Michael Crowe based on Michael’s psychological makeup where there is no evidence that defendant Blum advised using the type of “brutal” techniques that have been held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause. Moreover, assuming, as plaintiffs contend, that defendant McDonough lied to Michael during his interrogation, as discussed

supra,

it is not necessarily coercive, let alone outrageous, for a police officer to lie to a suspect during an interrogation.

See Pollard,

290 F.3d at 1034 ;

Orso,

266 F.3d at 1039 . Because defendant Blum and Mc-Donough did not engage in behavior that “shocks the conscience” so as to support a claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause, these defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Because defendant Sweeney has failed to address the conspiracy allegations leveled against him, his motion for summary judgment with respect to this claim is denied.

IV. Fifth Claim for Relief — Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process (Deprivation of Familial Companionship)

The boys and their parents

35

allege that by arresting the boys without probable cause, which resulted in the separation of the boys from their families for a period of time, defendants Blum, Wrisley, Sweeney, Claytor, McDonough, and Anderson

36

wrongfully deprived them of their right to familial companionship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause.

A substantive due process claim for deprivation of the right to familial companionship is recognized where the deprivation is the result of “unwarranted” governmental interference.

Smith v. City of Fontana,

818 F.2d 1411, 1418 (9th Cir.1987). As discussed

supra,

Joshua Tread-way’s and Aaron Houser’s arrests were supported by probable cause. Thus, the state’s interference with the familial relationships of the Treadways and Housers was not “unwarranted,” and the Treadway plaintiffs’ and Houser plaintiffs’ claims necessarily fail.

See Schaefer v. Goch,

153 F.3d 793, 799 (7th Cir.1998) (“Because we

*1099

have concluded that Sergeant Goch did not violate Kathy Nislowski’s rights under the Constitution, her parents’ claims based on the loss of her society and companionship necessarily fail as well.”).

Moreover, even if Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s arrests had not been supported by probable cause, a reasonable officer could have believed that they were supported by probable cause. Therefore, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the

Saucier

test because a reasonable officer would not have known that these arrests constituted an “unwarranted” interference with the right of companionship which would support a substantive due process claim.

Accordingly, all of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Treadways’ and Housers’ Fourteenth Amendment claims for deprivation of companionship.

With respect to the Crowes’ claims for deprivation of companionship, the Escondido defendants do not argue that there was probable cause to arrest Michael Crowe or that the Crowes did not suffer a deprivation of the constitutional right to familial companionship; rather, they argue that this right was not clearly established and therefore a reasonable officer at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest would not have known that it would violate this right to arrest Michael without probable cause.

As noted

supra,

“[w]hether the law was clearly established is a pure question of law for the court to decide.”

Carnell,

74 F.3d at 978 . The clearly-established inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the ease,

not as a broad general proposition

.... ”

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 201 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 (emphasis added). Thus, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry” is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Id.

at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ;

see also Cruz v. Kauai County,

279 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.2002) (“The right must be established at more than an abstract level: it ‘must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ”) (quoting

Anderson,

483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 ). “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Saucier,

533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . There is a common sense element to this test.

Jensen v. City of Oxnard,

145 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.1998) (“It is clearly established both by common sense and by precedent”).

Clearly, at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest, both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court had recognized that parents and children have a constitutional right in maintaining a familial relationship.

See Kelson v. City of Springfield,

767 F.2d 651, 654 (9th Cir.1985) (“The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the existence of a constitutional right to the maintenance of a parent-child relationship.”);

Smith,

818 F.2d at 1418 (children have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their relationships with their parents),

overruled on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina,

199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999). However, the relevant issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest that this constitutional right is violated when the police arrest a child without probable cause.

See Saucier,

533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).

*1100

Although defendants may be correct that this issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit law can “clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes.

See Kirkpatrick v. City of Los Angeles,

803 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir.1986) (“In the absence of binding precedent from this court or the Supreme Court, we look to decisions from other courts to determine if the right was clearly established.”) (emphasis added). At the time of the arrest of Michael Crowe, the law of this Circuit was that children and parents have an interest in companionship that constitutes a cognizable liberty interest and that the “unwarranted” interference with this liberty interest due to the “affirmative abuse of government power” rises to the level of a substantive due process violation.

See id,

at 1418. Although in

Smith

the “affirmative abuse of government power” was the use of excessive force during an arrest, the arrest of an individual without probable cause certainly arises to the level of an “affirmative abuse of government power,” and a reasonable officer would have known as much.

Although defendants argue that it was not clearly established that the right to companionship is violated by a wrongful arrest because cases at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest involving police officers only involved the permanent, rather than temporary, deprivation of this right, defendants have failed to demonstrate that this distinction is sufficiently significant that a reasonable police officer could have believed that a temporary deprivation does not violate this right. Although the wrongful conduct in

Smith

resulted in death, defendants have failed to identify any language in

Smith

which suggests that the Ninth Circuit’s recognition of the validity of the plaintiffs claim was predicated upon the fact that the wrongful use of government power resulted in a permanent deprivation of the right to companionship, and this court can find none.

Moreover, although

Ovando v. City of Los Angeles,

92 F.Supp.2d 1011 (C.D.Cal.2000) was decided after the relevant events in the present case and is not evidence of the state of the law at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest, the district court’s reasoning in

Ovando

is consistent with this court’s conclusion that it was not reasonable at the time of Michael Crowe’s arrest for a police officer to believe that it was constitutionally permissible to temporarily interfere with the right of familial companionship by means of an unlawful arrest.

In

Ovando ,

a daughter brought a civil rights action after her father was released from prison after being identified as one of the victims of the now-notorious Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) “Rampart” scandal, which involved “a wide variety of misconduct by LAPD officers including the shooting of unarmed suspects, the planting of evidence to justify those shootings, the preparation of false police reports to cover up the misconduct and the presentation of perjured testimony resulting in the false convictions and imprisonment of a number of innocent citizens.” 92 F.Supp.2d at 1014 . The daughter claimed that her constitutional right to familial association was violated by both the wrongful imprisonment of her father for almost three years and by the fact that he was rendered a paraplegic and suffered severe, permanent brain damage arising out the use of force by police.

The district court, recognizing that “a child has a substantive due process right in her relationship with her parents which may be vindicated through a Section 1983 action,” considered the scope of that right.

Id.

at 1018 . The defendants argued that the daughter had failed to state a claim for deprivation of companionship because the deprivation was not “permanent.” The district court rejected this argument, explaining that it “finds no support in the

*1101

case law.”

Id.

at 1019 . As the district court explained:

There is nothing in

Smith

that suggests that the holding is limited to wrongful death cases. Rather, the Court held simply that the liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is the right to be free from State interference with the companionship and society of one’s parent.

Smith,

818 F.2d at 1419 . Nowhere in its opinion did the Court indicate that a deprivation of a duration shorter than the entirety of the child’s life was not a “deprivation” cognizable under Section 1983, and this Court can find no principled basis for drawing such a distinction. Here, the unlawful imprisonment of Destiny’s father constituted a complete deprivation of his companionship and society for the term of his imprisonment. While Destiny’s father’s absence may have been “temporary” in the sense that it did not last for the entirety of her life, Destiny’s relationship with her father was permanently severed during that interval — those three years can never be retrieved. In that sense it was a temporary, but total, deprivation of a right recognized under the Fourteenth Amendment.

See Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,

395 U.S. 337, 340 , 89 S.Ct. 1820, 1822 , 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969) (prejudgment garnishment of wages without notice and prior hearing violated due process where deprivation of property is temporary but total).

Id.

at 1019 (internal footnote omitted).

In determining that the right asserted by the Crowes was clearly established, the court also finds significant the case of

Morrison v. Jones,

607 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir.1979). In that case, a mother, a German alien residing in the United States, brought an action after her minor son, also a German alien, was taken from Riverside General Hospital and transported by the county to Germany to reside with his grandparents, with whom he had resided before coming to the United States to be with his mother. Within several months of being notified that her son had been returned to Germany, the mother filed an action in federal court against,

inter alia,

the Director of Public Social Services, who requested that the County Board of Supervisors for Riverside County approve funds to transport the boy to Germany; the members of the County Board of Supervisors for Riverside County, who approved the funds; the Department of Public Social Services for the County of Riverside; and the Director of Child Psychiatry of the InPatient Unit, Riverside General Hospital, who allegedly recommended to the Board that the boy be sent to Germany because he was taking up valuable bed space.

The defendants argued,

inter alia,

that the mother did not have standing to sue because she was merely asserting the rights of her son. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument explaining that the mother

is asserting her interest as the mother of the child to preserve her access to the child and her access to effective judicial relief, which, she alleges, the defendants’ conduct destroyed. The defendants’ alleged actions unquestionably caused injury to Morrison with respect to her relationships with her son. Those interests, based on familial concepts, recognized by custom and practice for generations, are protected under the Constitution.

Id.

at 1275 (citations omitted). Defendants, recognizing that

Morrison

is a case dealing with a “less than permanent” deprivation of the right to companionship, contends that it is distinguishable because it dealt with such a deprivation “in the context of the

procedural

due process ramifications of

direct

interference with family relationship.” Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of De

*1102

fendant Barry Sweeney’s MSJ or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment p. 15:3-5 (emphasis added). Defendants’ attempt to distinguish

Morrison

is unavailing for two reasons.

First, the Ninth Circuit in

Morrison

held that the plaintiff stated a claim for relief “based upon her constitutionally secured rights to procedural due process of law

and her substantive familial rights

that have long been considered the ‘basic civil rights of man.’ ” 607 F.2d at 1276 (citing

Skinner v. Oklahoma,

316 U.S. 535, 541 , 62 S.Ct. 1110 , 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942)) (emphasis added). Therefore, Morrison did not, as defendants suggest, involve only a procedural due process claim.

Second, it is irrelevant that

Morrison

involved “direct interference with the family unit, with an intent to disrupt the family unit in order to protect the children” rather than a deprivation “as an incidental byproduct of police action”

37

given that the

Smith

case recognized a substantive due process claim where the deprivation of companionship was the “incidental byproduct” of the use of excessive force by the police.

Finally, defendants rely on case law from other circuits in an attempt to demonstrate that the law in this area was not clearly established; however, where the law is clearly established in the Ninth Circuit, the court need not look to other circuits.

See Kirkpatrick,

803 F.2d at 490

(“In the absence of binding precedent from this court or the Supreme Court,

we look to decisions from other courts to determine if the right was clearly established.”) (emphasis added).

Having determined that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Crowe’s claims for violation of the right to companionship, the court turns to additional arguments brought by specific defendants.

Defendants Blum, McDonough and Sweeney each contend that they are entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ claims for deprivation of companionship because they were not involved in the arrests of the boys.

As noted in section I.A.

supra,

it is undisputed that defendant Blum did not himself participate in the arrests of the boys or the searches of their residences, and there is no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant Blum had any control over the other defendants’ decision to conduct the arrests that underlie this claim. Accordingly, as a matter of law, defendant Blum was not the proximate cause of any deprivation of companionship that plaintiffs may have suffered and therefore cannot be held liable with respect to this claim.

See Franklin,

312 F.3d at 445-446 ;

King,

782 F.2d at 829 .

As noted in section I.B.

supra,

it is undisputed that defendant McDonough did not arrest the boys and was not involved in the decision to arrest the boys. Moreover, although a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant McDonough was involved in a conspiracy regarding the interrogation of the boys, there is no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that defendant McDonough was a part of a larger conspiracy involving the arrest and prosecution of the boys. Because, as set for in section I.B.,

supra,

defendant McDonough cannot be held liable for the boys’ arrests, he cannot be held liable for the deprivation of companionship arising out of the boys’ arrests.

*1103

On the other hand, as noted in section I.C.,

supra,

defendant Sweeney has failed to adequately demonstrate that he cannot be held hable for the boys’ arrests. Accordingly, although he is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Treadways’ and Housers’ claims for violation of the right to companionship because Joshua Treadway’s and Aaron Houser’s arrests were supported by probable cause, defendant Sweeney has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Crowes’ claims on the basis that he was not “involved” in Michael Crowe’s arrest.

V. Sixth and Tenth Claims for Relief— § 1983 defamation plus and state law defamation

The boys bring a state law claim for defamation as well as a § 1983 claim predicated upon defamation against defendants Stephan, Blum and Sweeney.

A. Defendant Stephan

Defendant Stephan took over as the prosecutor assigned to prosecute the boys in June 1998. Defendant Stephan handled the 707 hearings, the pretrial motions (including the suppression motions) and prepared for trial against Joshua Treadway. On the eve of Joshua’s trial, traces of Stephanie’s blood were found on Tuite’s red sweatshirt. The District Attorney’s Office subsequently moved to dismiss the charges against the boys. The superior court dismissed the charges on February 25,1999.

After the charges against the boys were dismissed, then-District Attorney Paul Pfingst requested that defendant Stephan appear on the “48 Hours” news program. Defendant Stephan sought the advice of the in-house ethics advisor, Brian Mi-chaels, who told her that she could ethically appear on the show as long as she referenced the public record.

See

Stephan Decl. ¶ 5; Brian Michaels Decl. ¶ 5; Stephan DT pp. 32:16-33:18; 34:7-35:5; 35:10-23 (Exhibit 9, NOL of Exhibits in Support of Defendant Summer Stephan’s MSJ / Special Motion to Strike / Request for Attorney Fees and Costs).

Defendant Stephan and the District Attorney’s media advisor, Gayle Falkenthal, met with a “48 Hours” reporter. Defendant Stephan answered questions during a two-hour, twenty-minute interview that was videotaped. Two minutes and nine seconds of this interview was used in the “48 Hours” program. The statements defendant Stephan made during this interview are the statements upon which the boys’ defamation claims are predicated.

1.State Law Defamation

California Civil Code § 44 defines “defamation” as either libel or slander. California Civil Code § 46 provides:

Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;

2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;

4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or

5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.

*1104

If a statement falls within § 46(l)-(4), it is considered defamatory per se.

See Rodriguez v. Panayiotou,

314 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir.2002).

The assertions of defendants Sweeney and Blum to the contrary notwithstanding, whether a statement is defamatory does not depend on whether it can be characterized as an opinion. Although support for such a position can be found in

Tschirky v. Superior Court,

124 Cal.App.3d 534, 539 , 177 Cal.Rptr. 357 (1981), later California cases have eschewed this position in light of the Supreme Court case of

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,

497 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). As the California court of appeal stated in

Kahn v. Bower,

232 Cal.App.3d 1599 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 (1991), “the dispositive question after

Milkovich

is ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion.’”

Id.

at 1607, 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 (quoting

Moyer v. Amador Valley J. Union High School Dist.,

225 Cal.App.3d 720, 724 , 275 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1990));

see also Gilbrook,

177 F.3d at 861-2 (“[A] court reviewing a claim of defamation must ask a threshold question: Could a reasonable factfinder conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact?”).

“The question whether challenged statements convey the requisite factual imputation is ordinarily a question of law for the court.”

Kahn,

232 Cal.App.3d at 1608 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 (1991). It is also for the court to determine whether a statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory interpretation.

See id.

If the court determines that the statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory interpretation, “it is for the jury to determine whether a defamatory meaning was in fact conveyed to the listener or reader.”

Id.

The boys contend that defendant Stephan’s statements are defamatory per se pursuant to § 46(1) because they charge the boys with killing Stephanie. As noted

supra,

“a court reviewing a claim of defamation must ask a threshold question: Could a reasonable factfinder conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact?”

Gilbrook,

177 F.3d at 861-2 . Only if a contested statement implies a false assertion of objective fact does it fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

See Partington v. Bugliosi,

56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1995). As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

To make that determination, this court has adopted a three-part test, in which

we must examine the totality of the circumstances in which the defendant made the challenged statement.

First, we look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general ten- or of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next we turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, we inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.

Gilbrook, 111

F.3d at 862 (emphasis added). Similarly, in determining whether a statement is “sufficiently communicative of provable falsity or actual fact to subject the defendant to liability,” California courts consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including the language of the statement and the context in which the statement was made.

See Kahn,

232 Cal. App.3d at 1608 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 . “ ‘This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to

*1105

whom the publication was directed.’ ”

Id.

at 1608 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 (quoting

Moyer,

225 Cal.App.3d at 724 , 275 Cal.Rptr. 494 (in turn quoting

Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner,

42 Cal.3d at 260-1, 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 )).

Because the statements upon which the boys’ defamation claims are predicated are statements in “sound bites” which were taken from an extensive interview, it is important to note that “defamatory meaning must be found, if at all, in a reading of the publication as a whole.... Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.”

Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp.,

162 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.1998);

see also Selleck v. Globe International Inc.,

166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1131 , 212 Cal.Rptr. 838 (1985) (court must examine newspaper’s headlines, caption, and article as a whole);

Corman v. Blanchard,

211 Cal.App.2d 126, 131-2 , 27 Cal.Rptr. 327 (1962) (examination of entire allegedly defamatory pamphlet necessary “to understand its import and the effect which it was intended to have on the reader”). Importantly, an individual who gives an interview “is not responsible for the subsequent editing” of the interview but rather is responsible only for statements made “in their full and complete form, not the sound bites they became.”

Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick,

264 F.3d 832 , 847 (9th Cir.2001).

Finally, not only must the statement imply an assertion of objective fact, but the assertion must be false, because in a defamation action, “the truth of the offensive statements or communication is a complete defense against civil liability .... ”

Ringlet Associates Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.,

80 Ca

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.