“Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search or arrest in a residence . . . unless some exception to the warrant requirement is also present.”
How later courts described this case
- “Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search or arrest in a residence . . . unless some exception to the warrant requirement is also present.”
- explaining that a right is clearly established only if it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust consensus of persuasive authority
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCT 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RYAN MORRISON, No. 22-55684
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-01961-JGB-JPR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALVARO RAMOS, in his individual and
official capacity; DAVID MIRZOYAN, in
his individual and official capacity;
MICHAEL BOYLLS, in his individual
and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT; RICHARDO ACOSTA;
JEFFREY MEGEE; DOES, 1 through 13,
inclusive; CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Morrison appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of appellee police officers Alvaro Ramos, David Mirzoyan, and Michael
Boylls in Morrison’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming false arrest and unlawful
seizure. At the time of the arrest, Morrison was living in an apartment with his
mother, who had contacted police and reported that Morrison had attacked her.
She led the police to the apartment, let them in, and identified Morrison’s bedroom
before they arrested him over his objection. After a court found probable cause to
believe he had committed felony assault with a deadly weapon and battery with
serious bodily injury, Morrison was tried before a jury and acquitted.
We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the false arrest
and unlawful seizure claims. Morrison does not seriously dispute on appeal that
the officers had probable cause to arrest him. Instead, he challenges the means by
which the officers carried out the arrest, arguing that the officers violated his
clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him inside his home
without a warrant and over his objection in violation of Payton v. New York, 445
U.S. 573 (1980). See United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 894 (9th Cir.
2
1985) (“Probable cause alone will not support a warrantless search or arrest in a
residence . . . unless some exception to the warrant requirement is also present.”)
Appellees contend that the district court correctly concluded that the officers were
entitled to qualified immunity, particularly because Morrison’s mother had
consented to the warrantless entry of the apartment they were sharing.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil
damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or
constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of
the challenged conduct.” Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 757 (2014) (quoting
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). Warrantless searches and seizures
are generally reasonable with consent from an owner or occupant. See Illinois v.
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990). But they are generally unreasonable when a
co-occupant is present and objects. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106
(2006). The Supreme Court has explained that “widely shared social expectations”
are significant in assessing reasonableness and suggested that children may have
less authority over a shared home than their parents. Id. at 111, 113-14. At the
time of the arrest, there was no controlling authority or consensus of persuasive
authority that a warrant was required to enter a residence shared by a consenting
parent and an objecting adult child, or an adult child’s bedroom within it. See
3
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018) (explaining that a right is
clearly established only if it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust
consensus of persuasive authority). In the absence of clearly established law, the
officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Morrison’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
4