The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in Bernal v. County of Sacramento.
On March 5, 2018, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department deputies responded to a threat made by Ryan Bernal, who was reported to be planning a school shooting. Upon arriving at the Bernals’ residence, they encountered Ryan’s parents, Celia and William.
Celia Bernal, having previously refused to disclose Ryan’s location due to an unverified phone call, attempted to retreat into her car when the deputies arrived. The officers, fearing that she was intending to flee, restrained her despite her verbal objections. While restrained, she called out to her husband, William, to record the incident.
Simultaneously, William had placed a small duffel bag on the hood of the car, which led to a difference in accounts. According to the Bernals, William did not reach into the bag, instead he was attempting to record the incident on his cellphone. Deputy Bliss, however, reported that William “aggressively” reached into the bag, leading him to draw his firearm as he feared William was retrieving a weapon. Upon seeing it was a cellphone and not a weapon, Deputy Bliss holstered his firearm. Despite this, the deputies proceeded to forcefully restrain William, believing he was resisting arrest.
Following the incident, the Bernals filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights among other claims. The deputies moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the deputies’ motion for the federal claims, stating that the initial seizure and use of force were reasonable. They also mentioned that even if a jury found the seizure or use of force unreasonable, qualified immunity would apply. The Bernals are now appealing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claims.
The Bernals were detained due to their knowledge of critical information needed to prevent a potential school shooting. This case presents a nuanced question: the extent to which law enforcement may detain individuals, not as suspects, but as witnesses possessing crucial information for a potential crime prevention.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable seizures unless the government has reasonable suspicion of the individual’s involvement in a criminal activity. However, exceptions exist for detaining non-suspect witnesses to obtain information under particular circumstances, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Lidster. Notwithstanding, past legal decisions indicated that the government’s interest in detaining non-suspect witnesses is diminished unless there is an immediate requirement for action, significant public interest, and the detention is minimally intrusive.
This case differentiates from previous ones due to the emergency presented by the imminent school shooting and the Bernals’ possession of critical information – the suspected shooter’s location. Considering the exigent circumstances, the court deemed it justified to briefly detain the Bernals. This detention’s permissibility was contingent upon its brevity and the non-use of excessive force, factors the court found were within acceptable limits in this particular situation. Nevertheless, the court also acknowledged that the deputies exceeded their authority when they used substantial force to restrain William Bernal, who was compliant and unarmed.
The Bernals’ argument that their right to terminate the conversation with the deputies, as established in Florida v. Royer, was refuted due to the difference in circumstances. In the Bernals’ case, the exigent circumstances justified their brief detention and limited use of force to prevent them from leaving. Therefore, this case underscores the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment in the face of exigent circumstances requiring critical information for preventing a severe crime.
To listen to the oral argument, click here.
Do you have questions about a possible case? Contact Us today for a free case consultation.