Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

C. B. v. City of Sonora

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 15, 2014No. 11-17454Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerzon, Circuit Judge

I concur in Judge Paez’s opinion, with one exception: as to C.B.’s unlawful seizure claim, I concur in the result reached by Judge Paez but would reach that result via different reasoning.

As to the seizure issue, the reliance on New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), in the three other opinions in this case is, in my view, entirely beside the point. The police officer defendants have consistently maintained that they seized C.B. because they had reasonable cause to believe he was a child covered by California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601(a). But…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Hope v. PelzerSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API