Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellees, police officers who were employed by the city of Abilene, applied for and received a warrant to arrest the appellant and search his apartment based on information obtained from a confidential informant. The confidential informant stated that he had seen appellant with marijuana at appellant’s apartment. The next day, appellant left his place of employment, a restaurant, and walked across a parking lot toward his parked Suburban. As he approached the vehicle, appellant remotely unlocked the doors and started the engine. Immediately thereafter, he was intercepted by two officers, including Officer Jimmy Seals. Appellant confirmed his identity. Seals then placed him under arrest. After searching appellant and finding no weapons or contraband, appellees handcuffed appellant and placed him in a police vehicle. Appellees then advised appellant that the officers had an arrest and search warrant for him and his apartment. They then searched the Suburban after placing him in a patrol car. A search of the vehicle revealed no weapons or contraband. Appellees subsequently transported Appellant to his apartment complex in a police vehicle, with one officer driving appellant’s vehicle to the complex. Appellees obtained a key and executed a search of the apartment. Again, no contraband was found. Appellees next searched appellant’s Suburban a second time. Appellees found one marijuana seed. Then, appellees searched appellant’s Cadillac, which was parked in the apartment complex lot. Appellees found nothing illegal. Consequently, appellant was released and no charges were filed against him. The appellant filed suit against appellees and the city alleging that appellees violated his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ��1983, 1985 and that the unconstitutional conduct by the police was the result of the city’s official policy, custom or practice. He additionally brought state law claims. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, claiming that the warrant was valid, all of the searches were constitutional, and, even if a search were unconstitutional, Appellees are immune from liability. The district court granted appellees’ motions on all claims. HOLDING:The court affirms the dismissal of appellant’s state law claims against the city of Abilene but vacates the dismissal of appellant’s �1983 claims against the city of Abilene. Appellees arrested appellant pursuant to a valid warrant. The court rejects appellant’s contention that his arrest was unconstitutional and affirm the dismissal of this claim. Appellees had probable cause to search the Suburban both times. The district court found that Seals was told by the informant that appellant “sometimes hid marijuana in his 1999 Green Chevrolet Suburban bearing Texas License # ILHS87.” The court also found that the information received from the informant was reasonably trustworthy. Thus, appellees had probable cause to search the Suburban for contraband at the time of arrest and again at the apartment complex. The Cadillac was not subject to a valid warrantless search under the automobile exception since Appellees had no probable cause to believe that marijuana would be found in the Cadillac. Here, the informant reported to appellees only that appellant sometimes kept marijuana in his Suburban, not the Cadillac. Furthermore, upon looking into the vehicle, appellees do not claim they saw or smelled something that might lead to probable cause. Therefore, no search of the Cadillac was allowed under the automobile exception. The warrantless search of the Cadillac might be constitutional if the Cadillac was parked within the apartment’s curtilage. The court’s factual findings included that the Cadillac was parked in the apartment complex parking lot (not a garage or other enclosure), the lot had multiple spaces, and the Cadillac was parked in an assigned space. It did not make a finding regarding the proximity of the Cadillac to the apartment. In light of these findings of fact, the court holds that this parking space in the apartment complex parking lot is not part of the curtilage of appellant’s apartment. Appellees’ search of a car in an open parking lot without a search warrant, without probable cause, without a concern for officer safety, and without consent violates clearly established law. A reasonable officer would not think the Constitution allows a random search of a vehicle where none of the above justifications apply. Thus, appellees are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for the unconstitutional search of the Cadillac. The court holds that the appellant has stated cognizable claims against the city under �1983. For the purpose of bringing state law claims against the city, the appellant fails to show that the city had actual notice of his injuries. Appellant contends that the city had actual notice of his injuries when “Appellant’s supervisor reported him as being abducted and when Appellant requested an incident report regarding the search of his home.” The Texas Supreme Court has held that actual notice to a governmental unit requires knowledge of “(1) a death, injury, or property damage; (2) the governmental unit’s alleged fault producing or contributing to the death, injury, or property damage; and (3) the identity of the parties involved.” Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995). Because the appellant has not alleged that the city had these three pieces of information, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that he provided the city with actual notice of his injuries. The court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s state law claims against the city. OPINION:Pre curiam; DeMoss, Benavides and Prado, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.