In Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, (— F.3d —, 2007 WL 2034040, C.A.9 (Cal.), July 17, 2007), the United States Court of Appeals considered claims of wrongful arrest and illegal search in the case of a man arrested for trespassing and searched after police officers observed him standing inside the fence of a housing project. The court ruled that police had no probable cause to make the arrest, that a jury could reasonably find that the search was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the officers had no immunity from liability for the arrest or for the search.
Facts
Two San Francisco police officers on routine patrol saw Erris Edgerly standing inside a fence of a housing project, and saw him again in the same place five minutes later. Knowing Edgerly from a previous drug offense, and knowing that he did not live at the location, the officers arrested him for trespassing. The officers performed a pat-down search and took Edgerly to a police station for an additional search. Edgerly claimed, and the officers denied, that he was told to pull down his pants and that officers then looked inside his underwear. The search revealed no contraband and a sergeant ordered the officers to cite and release Edgerly, who was never prosecuted for any offense.
Edgerly sued the city, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, and violations of state laws for false arrest and unlawful search. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the Fourth Amendment claims. At trial, the court ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest Edgerly for some potential offense, that the search was reasonable, and therefore the officers were entitled to immunity from all of Edgerly's claims. Edgerly appealed.
Decision
On the issue of whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Edgerly, the court, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Devenpeck v. Alford, 542 U.S. 146 (2004), stated that an arrest is unlawful without probable cause for a specific offense, and merely suspecting "some metaphysical criminal offense" is inadequate. Edgerly's presence on the property for a few minutes was not probable cause to suspect him of trespassing, loitering, or any other specific offense, the court said. Lacking such probable cause, the officers' arrest of Edgerly was illegal.
As to the officers' search of Edgerly, a reasonable jury could have concluded that it was unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the district court's summary judgment for the City on the search issue was therefore wrong, the court said. The officers suspected Edgerly only of trespass, a minor offense not involving contraband, weapons, or violence. A jury therefore should have considered Edgerly's claim that he was illegally strip searched.
The court ruled the officers were not entitled to immunity for either the arrest or search claims. Edgerly was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the wrongful arrest claims and the case was remanded for a determination of damages. The court remanded the search claims for further proceedings for a jury to determine whether the search was unreasonable.