Jimenez v. City of Sacramento

Summary

The court addresses defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, warrantless vehicle searches, and Monell liability. It grants summary judgment on the Monell claim concerning GPS-device placement, but denies summary judgment on the excessive-force, failure-to-intervene, vehicle-search, and Monell unreasonable-force claims. The court concludes that factual disputes preclude resolving the force and intervention issues at summary judgment and finds the November 6, 2020 removal of the GPS device unlawful.

Holdings

1. The November 2, 2020 stop and search of the vehicle and placement of the GPS tracking device were lawful because Martell, a known PRCS participant, was driving and exercising control over the vehicle at the time.
2. The November 6, 2020 search of Jimenez's vehicle and retrieval of the GPS tracking device were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked Jimenez's consent, probable cause, or a sufficiently supported basis to believe that Martell controlled the vehicle.
3. Summary judgment was improper on Jimenez's excessive-force claim because a reasonable jury could find either that Franzen's use of force was justified or that it was unreasonable.
4. Summary judgment was improper on the failure-to-intervene claim because the existence of an underlying constitutional violation and whether the witnessing officers had sufficient time to intervene remained disputed factual questions.
5. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim arising from the November 6 search of Jimenez's vehicle because the Fourth Amendment right at issue was clearly established.
6. The officers were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity for the use-of-force claim because whether a constitutional violation occurred depended on disputed facts reserved for the jury, and the right not to be subjected to unreasonable force during an arrest was clearly established.
7. Jimenez's Monell claim based on the Sacramento Police Department's alleged practice of placing GPS trackers failed because the court found that the initial placement of the tracker was lawful and therefore no underlying constitutional injury occurred.
8. Summary judgment was improper on Jimenez's Monell claim alleging a municipal practice of charging individuals under California Penal Code section 148 to justify unreasonable force.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the November 2, 2020 search of Jimenez's vehicle and placement of a GPS tracking device were lawful because Martell, a PRCS participant, was driving the vehicle.
2. Whether the November 6, 2020 search of Jimenez's vehicle to retrieve the GPS tracking device violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
3. Whether factual disputes concerning the reasonableness of Franzen's use of force precluded summary judgment.
4. Whether factual disputes concerning the other officers' opportunity and duty to intervene precluded summary judgment.
5. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
6. Whether Jimenez presented sufficient evidence to proceed on her Monell claim concerning an alleged practice of using force and Penal Code section 148 citations to justify that force.
7. Whether Jimenez could maintain a Monell claim based on the initial placement of GPS tracking devices when the court found no constitutional violation from that placement.

Disposition

other