Hansen v. Schubert

Full title: MARK J. HANSEN; MONICA S. HANSEN; SHASTA GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 15, 2009

No. 08-16398 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2009)

Opinion

MARK J. HANSEN; MONICA S. HANSEN; SHASTA GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, and BERNIE L. HANSEN; KELLY A. HANSEN; DONALD R. LANCASTER, Plaintiffs, v. ARTHUR SCHUBERT; D. MISQUEZ; GLADYS RIVERA; BETTY RODRIGUEZ; RANDY JUNGLES; LIDIA VARGES; GREG A. ZIEGLER; STEPHANIE MCCALL; CRAIG BURSON; TONY ESTEVES; J. WALLENHORST; VINCENT ZAMBRANA, Defendants - Appellees. No. 08-16398 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit October 15, 2009

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2009 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:02-cv-00850-FCD-GGH

Before: RYMER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,^[**]District Judge

MEMORANDUM

In this § 1983 action, plaintiffs Mark J. and Monica S. Hansen and a company they operate, Shasta General Engineering, Inc. ("Shasta"), asserted a variety of claims under the Fourth Amendment. The Hansens appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment on three of their claims. The Hansens contend that the district court erred in concluding that the search warrant at issue was based on probable cause, that the scope of the search did not exceed that authorized by the warrant and that the search was not unlawful for being disproportionate to its underlying purpose. We affirm the decision of the district court in all respects.

We conclude, first, that the district court correctly determined that the magistrate had probable cause to issue the search warrant at issue. Probable cause exists if "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). In the present case, the warrant was based in substantial part on information provided by a citizen informant. This informant told defendant Arthur Schubert that Shasta was engaging in criminal activity through its method of paying its employees. Schubert corroborated the information in several ways. For these reasons, the district court properly concluded that the magistrate had probable cause.

We also conclude that the scope of the search did not exceed that authorized by the warrant. Officers may search containers in which the objects of a search may reasonably be found. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21 (1982); see also United States v. Williams, 687 F.2d 290, 293 (9th Cir. 1982) (upholding search of lunch box because evidence of marijuana cultivation could be hidden inside). The search warrant in this case authorized the search for many small items that could reasonably be found in the areas searched.

Finally, the officers did not conduct the search in an unreasonable manner. Plaintiffs tried their excessive force and unreasonable detention claims to a jury and did not prevail and have no separate disproportionality claim.

AFFIRMED.