UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM BERNAL; CELIA No. 22-15690 BERNAL, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:19-cv-00482- MCE-AC v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY OPINION SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; HINKLEY, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; SCOTT JONES, Sacramento County Sheriff; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT; FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRADSHAW, Folsom Police Officer; COUCH, Sergeant; WINKEL, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; KENNEDY, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; SUTTER, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; CHHLANG, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; BLISS, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy; QUACKENBUSH, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy,

Defendants-Appellees. 2 BERNAL V. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 31, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed July 7, 2023

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and James V. Selna, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Selna

SUMMARY **

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Sacramento County Sheriffs’ Deputies in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that presents the question of whether and to what extent law enforcement may detain people who are not suspected of engaging in criminal activity but who have information essential to preventing a threatened school shooting.

* The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BERNAL V. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T 3

The Deputies encountered Celia and William Bernal (collectively “the Bernals”) at their home during the Deputies’ investigation into allegations that the Bernals’ son Ryan planned a shooting at his school that day. During the interaction, the Deputies held Celia’s arms and used a twist- lock to prevent her from leaving. The Deputies also pointed a firearm at William, forcibly restrained him, and put him in handcuffs. The district court held that the Deputies did not violate the Fourth Amendment by detaining the Bernals even in the absence of reasonable suspicion. The district court further found that the Deputies did not use excessive force during the Bernals’ detention and, even if they had, qualified immunity applied. Tha panel first considered whether the initial seizure of the Bernals was reasonable. Because the Bernals were detained but not arrested, the reasonableness of their detention depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. To justify the suspicionless seizure of a material witness, there must be exigencies requiring immediate action, the gravity of the public interest must be great, and the detention must be minimally intrusive. Applying these principles, the panel held that the Deputies had limited authority to briefly detain and question the Bernals about Ryan’s location due primarily to the exigencies inherent in preventing an imminent school shooting. This holding was predicated on two key facts: first, the Deputies knew the Bernals had information crucial to stopping a potential mass shooting— the suspected shooter’s location; and second, there was an ongoing emergency threatening numerous lives which required immediate action. The panel further held that it 4 BERNAL V. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T

need