STEPHEN HILL, ET AL V. CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, ET AL, No. 21-55867 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
At around nine o’clock in the evening, a concerned citizen called 911 to report a Ford Mustang darting erratically in the streets. Behind the wheel was a young white male, along with a blindfolded female in the car. With the aid of the car’s license plate number provided by the caller, Fountain Valley police officers figured out the home address of the driver and raced to that house. But this was not an ongoing kidnapping. In reality, the driver was taking his wife for a “surprise” anniversary dinner. And his parents would soon experience a surprise of their own as the police officers descended upon the home that they shared with their son. Before this mix-up could be cleared, the police officers ordered the Plaintiffs out of their home for obstructing the police and pushed the father to the ground as they handcuffed him. The Hills later sued, alleging (among other things) violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless arrests and excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment for police officers.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that the police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure when the officers ordered them to exit the home or face arrest for obstruction. The officers never seized Plaintiffs, who did not submit to the officers’ demand to leave the home. They, therefore, could not claim that they were unlawfully arrested. The panel next held that while the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for obstruction of justice, they were nevertheless shielded by qualified immunity.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless arrests and excessive force.
Police responded to a 911 call that a Ford Mustang was darting erratically in the streets. Behind the wheel was a young white male, along with a blindfolded female in the car. With the aid of the car’s license plate number provided by the caller, police officers figured out the home address of the driver. In reality, the driver, Benjamin Hill, was taking his wife for a “surprise” anniversary dinner. When officers arrived at the home that Benjamin shared with his parents and before the mix-up could be cleared, the officers ordered Benjamin’s parents, Stephen and Teresa, and brother, Brett, * The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. out of their home for obstructing the police and pushed Stephen to the ground as they handcuffed him.
The panel rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure when the officers ordered them to exit the home or face arrest for obstruction. The officers never seized Brett or Teresa, who did not submit to the officers’ demand to leave the home. They therefore could not claim that they were unlawfully arrested. The panel next held that while the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Stephen for obstruction of justice, they were nevertheless shielded by qualified immunity. The panel noted that although it is well established under California law that even outright refusal to cooperate with police officers cannot create adequate grounds for police intrusion without more, here there was no clearly established law that the officers could not arrest Stephen, given his evasive behavior that appeared to interfere with an urgent investigation into a potential kidnapping.
The panel held that Stephen’s excessive force claim failed because he suffered only a minor injury when pushed to the grassy lawn during a tense encounter. Finally, Stephen’s First Amendment retaliation claim did not pass muster because he presented no evidence that the officers arrested him because of his mild questioning of the officers.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Tashima agreed with the majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of the excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims. Judge Tashima would reverse the dismissal of Stephen’s unlawful seizure claim because clearly established precedent prohibited the officers from making the warrantless arrest at Stephen’s home, when they did not have probable cause, there were no exigent circumstances and it was clearly established, among other things, that at the time “even an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers” did not justify a warrantless arrest for a violation of California Penal Code § 148.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.