## Facts

- Anaheim police officers Ryan Tisdale and James Brown, acting as city employees, arrested Lorenzo Oliver and his minor son (C.J./C.B. Oliver) after concluding the son tried to kill an opossum with a shovel.
- The arrests were for alleged violation of California Penal Code § 597(a), which prohibits the intentional and malicious killing or wounding of an animal.
- California Penal Code § 599c provides that the animal-anticruelty provisions are not to be read as interfering with the right to destroy any animal known to be dangerous to life, limb, or property.
- A previously issued California wildlife regulation identified opossums as “dangerous,” and the method the Olivers used (attempting to kill the opossum by striking it with a shovel) was not prohibited by the relevant statutory/regulatory scheme.
- The Olivers were not convicted under § 597(a) (and the matter did not result in a criminal conviction) because the statutory exception in § 599c and related regulations made the conduct lawful in the circumstances alleged.
- The Olivers sued the officers and the City of Anaheim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment violations based on arrests without probable cause.
- The officers and the city asserted qualified immunity, and the district court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The Olivers appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest the minor and his father for animal cruelty under Cal. Penal Code § 597(a) based on attempting to kill an opossum with a shovel, given Cal. Penal Code § 599c and related wildlife regulations.
2. If probable cause was lacking, whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the Olivers’ § 1983 false-arrest claims.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for the defendants and remanded.
- The court held the officers lacked probable cause because the conduct the officers believed occurred—trying to kill an opossum by hitting it with a shovel—was not a crime under California law when § 597(a) is read with § 599c and the applicable wildlife regulation identifying opossums as dangerous.
- Because there was no predicate offense, the court also rejected probable cause to arrest the father on a theory that depended on the son having committed a crime.
- The court held the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could not have believed the arrests were lawful in light of the controlling statutory and regulatory text.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment if it is not supported by probable cause.
- Probable cause requires facts showing the arrestee likely committed an actual offense; it cannot rest on conduct that state law affirmatively permits.
- When a statute contains an express exception that authorizes the conduct at issue (here, the right to destroy an animal known to be dangerous to life, limb, or property), officers must account for that exception in assessing probable cause.
- Qualified immunity does not shield officers who make arrests that no reasonable officer could think lawful under clearly established statutory language and controlling legal rules.
- Derivative arrest theories (such as accessory or aiding-and-abetting theories) fail where there is no underlying criminal act.

## Conclusion

In *Oliver v. City of Anaheim*, the Ninth Circuit held that Anaheim officers lacked probable cause to arrest a father and his minor son for animal cruelty based on attempting to kill an opossum with a shovel, because California law—through Penal Code § 599c and related wildlife regulations—authorized destroying an opossum treated as dangerous, and the method used was not prohibited; the court therefore reversed the defense judgment, denied qualified immunity, and remanded for further proceedings.


Oliver v. City of Anaheim, 490 F. App’x. 890 (2012)