Issue
Whether the LAPD conducted an illegal search at a gun shop, violating the Fourth Amendment.
Facts
On November 17, 2005, Detective Mersereau used an informant to conduct an undercover sale of illegal firearms to a West Hollywood gun shop. The assault weapons included a Springfield M1A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a flash suppressor, a Whitney Wolverine semiautomatic pistol with threaded barrel and detachable magazine, and a Reising submachine gun.
Zoltan Szajer purchased the Springfield M1A and the Whitney Wolverine semiautomatic pistol, but the informant left the submachine gun despite Szajer informing the informant that the submachine gun was likely illegal to possess. After the informant left, Szajer called the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department to request the submachine gun be picked up. While Szajer was on the phone, Detective Mersereau and several other LAPD officers entered the gun shop, arrested Szajer for the purchase of two assault weapons and possession of a submachine gun, and detained Szajer until they could obtain a search warrant.
The defendants filed a civil suit, claiming that the City of Los Angeles and LAPD officers violated the Szajer’s rights by conducting illegal searches and by seizing personal property, violating their Fourth Amendment rights.
The Court Below
United Stated District Court for the Central District of California was the first to hear the case. The court ruled in favor of the defendant “for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s motion to continue the trail date and extend the discovery cut-off date and motion to join defendants.” The reason offered by the court were that the plaintiffs had no evidence to substantiate their claims. See opinion below:
Helene Szajer, Zoltan Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 07-07433 SVW PLAx C.D. Cal, 2008
The plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision to grant the motion for summary judgement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant, affirming the district court’s decision to grant summary judgement, because the plaintiffs challenged the search of their gun shop while failing to challenge the validity of the search warrant. See opinion below:
Helene Szajer; Zoltan Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 632 F.3d 607 9th Cir., 2011
Szajer then appealed the Ninth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, declined to hear the case. See opinion below:
Zoltan Szajer, et ux. v. City of Los Angeles, 132 S.Ct. 98 U.S., 2011
Question before the Court
“This Court ‘must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”
CCJ filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a reply brief in support of the Szajers.
Summary:
Granting certiorari is appropriate when there is a conflict between a court of appeals decision and a decision of this court.
The Ninth Circuit conflicts with this Court’s recent ruling in how the word “necessarily” is interpreted and applied in Skinner and a circuit split exists in how Heck is interpreted and therefore applied. The Ninth Circuit’s approach directly conflicts with this Court’s recent ruling because it appears that this Court has sanctioned the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation of the word “necessarily” by overturning the Fifth Circuit’s approach. Therefore, the word “necessarily” needs clarification. Furthermore, there is an acknowledged circuit split between the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits existing in the interpretation and application of Heck v. Humphrey.
The issue in conflict is recurring and of great practical importance, which now seems to have come in direct conflict between the Ninth Circuit’s approach and the decision of this Court. The important purpose of §1983 claims was to provide means for all citizens to recover damages if it is proven that a state actor violated a constitutional right by failing or refusing to enforce state law. The inconsistent circuit treatment of §198 claims based on the Fourth Amendment illegal search or seizure violations is well-recognized and has generated substantial legal scholarship. However, claimants in different jurisdictions continue to be treated separately. This provides the appearance of inconsistency to the public, and under the Ninth Circuit’s approach, there is a corrupting effect on the just administration of plea bargaining.
The decision below is incorrect and squarely presents the circuit conflict for this court’s resolution. The court below improperly conflated the illegal search of the store as being inextricably intertwined with the warrant and subsequent search of the house. This incorrect precedent interpreting ‘necessarily’ barred the lower courts from properly analyzing whether the Szajers’ §1983 claim necessarily implied the invalidity of their conviction.
Nothing from that warrantless search and seizure was used in any manner to get a warrant that led to the discovery of the H&K pistol in their home that forged the basis for their conviction. Yet, because the conviction still stood, the Ninth Circuit barred the claim even though the Szajers’ claim would almost certainly have had no impact whatsoever on the validity of the conviction.
Final Outcome
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the City of Los Angeles, arguing that action by the Szajers was precluded by the Heck doctrine because they failed to render the conviction or sentence invalid or call it into question in some way. This ruling is contrary to CCJ’s position on the matter.
