## Facts

- Law enforcement planned and executed simultaneous search warrants on January 21, 1998, at several residences of members of the San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club and at the clubhouse.
- The searches were conducted to obtain “indicia” evidence of common symbols and membership to support a gang-enhancement theory in a murder prosecution under California Penal Code § 186.22.
- Officers seized extremely large quantities of property described as “truckloads,” including not only clothing and insignia but also high-value and bulky items such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, a concrete slab, and a refrigerator door.
- Plaintiffs alleged the seizures and manner of execution caused significant, unnecessary damage to seized items and other property.
- During execution at the Vieiras’ residence, officers shot two dogs; during execution at Souza’s property, officers shot and killed one dog.
- Plaintiffs contended officers had time to plan and could have used non-lethal means to control or secure the animals.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations based on (1) unreasonable seizures and property destruction during execution of the warrants, and (2) unreasonable seizure of the dogs.
- The district court denied qualified immunity in part, and the individual officers took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged mass seizure of property and attendant damage during execution of the warrants could constitute an unreasonable seizure and unreasonable property destruction under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether shooting and killing plaintiffs’ dogs during the searches could constitute an unreasonable seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted Fourth Amendment limits were not clearly established in 1998.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
- Taking plaintiffs’ version of the facts, a reasonable jury could find the officers’ execution of the warrants unreasonably destructive and disproportionate to the limited evidentiary purpose of collecting indicia.
- A reasonable jury could also find the shootings of the dogs unreasonable where officers had time to plan and non-lethal options were allegedly available.
- The court held the relevant Fourth Amendment constraints were clearly established at the time, so the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law on these claims.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment regulates not only whether a warrant may issue, but also whether the manner of executing a warrant is reasonable.
- “Unnecessarily destructive behavior, beyond that necessary to execute a warrant effectively,” can violate the Fourth Amendment even when officers act under a valid warrant.
- Officers must limit seizures to what is reasonable in light of the evidentiary purpose and may not inflict gratuitous or excessive damage as a method of execution.
- Killing a pet dog is a Fourth Amendment “seizure” of property; its reasonableness depends on necessity and the availability of less destructive alternatives.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable where, under plaintiffs’ facts, conduct could violate the Constitution and the unlawfulness would have been apparent to a reasonable officer under clearly established law.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, on plaintiffs’ evidence, officers could be found to have executed search warrants in an unreasonably destructive manner by seizing and damaging massive amounts of property for limited indicia purposes and by shooting pet dogs without sufficient necessity, and that clearly established Fourth Amendment law barred qualified immunity at that stage.


San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005)