United States District Court, D. Idaho
DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 33) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO PROHIBIT BOTH THE DISPLAY OF FABIAN SALINAS'S
PHOTOGRAPH AND ANY MENTION OF HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY AT TRIAL
(DOCKET NO. 24) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THREE FACTS
RELYING ON SHERIFF RANEY'S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURES IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' BRIEF (DOCKET NO. 35)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE FROM DEFENDANTS'
STATEMENT OF FACTS, RESPONSE BRIEF, AND CROSS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REFERENCES TO INFORMATION POLICE KNEW BUT
DID NOT SHARE WITH SHANIZ WEST (DOCKET NO. 36)
E. BUSH CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending before the Court are the following motions: (1)
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 29);
(2) Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
No. 33); (3) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Prohibit
Both the Display of Fabian Salinas's Photograph and Any
Mention of His Criminal History at Trial (Docket No. 24); (4)
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Three Facts Relying on
Sheriff Raney's Expert Witness Disclosures in Support of
Defendants' Brief (Docket No. 35); and (5)
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike from Defendants'
Statement of Facts, Response Brief, and Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment References to Information Police Knew but
Did Not Share with Shaniz West (Docket No. 36). Having
carefully considered the record, participated in oral
argument, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters
the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
action relates to an August 11, 2014 standoff between Fabian
Salinas and police officers from the Caldwell Police
Department at Plaintiff Shaniz West's residence in Nampa,
Idaho. Plaintiff generally alleges that, in attempting to
apprehend Mr. Salinas, Defendants violated her Fourth
Amendment rights by effectively destroying her home. The
pertinent factual backdrop is as follows:
all relevant times to this action, Plaintiff rented a house
located at 10674 Gossamer Street in Nampa, Idaho (the
“Residence”); Plaintiff lived at the Residence
with her two adolescent children (while also pregnant with
her third child). See Am. Compl., ¶ 15 (Docket
During the night and early morning hours of August 10-11,
2014, Plaintiff heard knocking on the doors and windows of
the Residence. See Defs.' SOF, No. 7 (Docket No.
33, Att. 2). On the morning of August 11, 2014, Plaintiff
called the police to report the incident and Officer Troyer
with the Caldwell Police Department responded. See
id. Plaintiff told Officer Troyer that the knocking may
have been her ex-boyfriend, Mr. Salinas. See id.
Likewise, Mr. Salinas's sister, Crystal Vasquez (who was
also at the Residence during this time), suggested that the
knocking might have been Mr. Salinas. See id.
Officer Troyer told Plaintiff that Mr. Salinas had warrants
for his arrest and that the police would patrol the area
looking for him. See id.
Later that day, Mr. Salinas came to the Residence to retrieve
some of his belongings. See Am. Compl., ¶ 16
(Docket No. 20). Mr. Salinas was a wanted felon. See
id. at ¶ 17; see also Defs.' SOF, Nos.
1-5 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2) (discussing Mr. Salinas's
gang affiliation and criminal history, including, but not
limited to, rioting, discharging a weapon, aggravated
assault, and drug charges).
Mr. Salinas arrived at the Residence, Plaintiff was preparing
to leave to register her son for elementary school.
See Am. Compl., ¶ 18 (Docket No. 20).
Plaintiff instructed Mr. Salinas to gather his belongings
(which were in boxes in the garage) and vacate the Residence
before she returned. See id. Before leaving,
Plaintiff told Mr. Salinas to lock the chain lock on the
front door and leave the back door unlocked. See
Defs.' SOF, No. 8 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2); see
also Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 1 (Docket
No. 34, Att. 1). Plaintiff then left the Residence with her
two children and began walking toward her son's school.
See Am. Compl., ¶ 18 (Docket No. 20).
Police officers then responded to a 911 call from
Plaintiff's grandmother, Deborah Garcia, requesting
assistance at the Residence. See Defs.' SOF, No.
9 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2) (after leaving Residence, Ms.
Vasquez informed Ms. Garcia that Mr. Salinas was at
Residence, prompting Ms. Garcia to call 911 and report that
Mr. Salinas was there, with recorded dispatch call log
indicating that Ms. Garcia “provided police with the
following information: (1) Salinas was at West's home and
was possibly threatening her with a BB gun; (2) there were
children at the house; (3) Salinas was inside the home even
if West informed officers that he was not at the house; (4)
Salinas was in possession of a BB gun; and (5) Salinas was on
meth.”) (internal citations omitted).
Caldwell Police Department responded and, after arriving at
the Residence, Detective Matthew Richardson attempted to call
Plaintiff's cell phone multiple times, but did not
receive an answer. See id. at No. 11. He then called
Ms. Garcia to gather more information, learning that (1) Ms.
Garcia believed Mr. Salinas was inside the Residence; (2) he
likely parked his car somewhere else; (3) he had a loaded BB
gun; (4) he was “starting shit with Shaniz”; (5)
he probably broke Plaintiff's phone; and (6) Ms. Vasquez
was at the Residence but she left once Mr. Salinas arrived.
See id. Detective Richardson then tried to call Ms.
Vasquez but the call went to her voicemail. See id.
He then knocked on the Residence's door and called out
for Mr. Salinas and Plaintiff, but did not receive an answer.
Detective Richardson then called a different number for Ms.
Vasquez; this time, she answered the phone. See id.
at No. 12. Ms. Vasquez told Detective Richardson that (1) she
saw Mr. Salinas inside the Residence 20-30 minutes prior; (2)
he was in possession of a firearm that she believed was a BB
gun; (3) he was waiving the BB gun around; (4) he was on
drugs; (5) somebody had dropped him off at the Residence and
left; and (5) Plaintiff was not answering her phone. See
id. After this call, the police officers on the scene
discussed whether they should enter the Residence. See
id. Officer Hemmert stated that he heard a noise in the
garage that sounded like somebody opening a crawl space.
See id. Around this time, Sergeant Hoadley saw
Plaintiff walking down the sidewalk toward the Residence.
Earlier, as she was walking to register he son at the school,
Plaintiff received a phone call from police dispatch. See
id. at No. 13. She answered the phone, but it
immediately died. See id. Plaintiff did not know why
dispatch was calling her, but she believed the call was
either to follow up from her morning call to police, or
because police officers who were patrolling the area, saw Mr.
Salinas enter the Residence. See id. When she
returned at approximately 2:20 p.m., Plaintiff found numerous
Caldwell Police Department officers outside the Residence,
assuming that their presence had something to do with Mr.
Salinas. See id., see also Am. Compl.,
¶ 19 (Docket No. 20); Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l
Facts, Nos. 4-5 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1) (“When West
returned, she found her home ‘surrounded with
officers.' Five police officers, to be exact: Officers
Joey Hoadley (“Hoadley”), Arguello, Hemmert,
Schreiber, and Detective Matt Richardson
(“Richardson”).”) (internal citations
omitted). Even so, Plaintiff did not understand why police
officers were in the backyard of the Residence. See
Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 6 (Docket No. 34,
Att. 1); see also id. at No. 7 (“One officer
was guarding the front door and garage door, Officer Hemmert
was in the backyard, having gained entry through an open
gate, Hoadley was on the east side of the home, watching both
the front and back and two other officers generally roving
around the home.”).
seeing Plaintiff walking toward the Residence, Sergeant
Hoadley and Detective Richardson approached and later spoke
with her. See Defs.' SOF, No. 14 (Docket No. 33,
Att. 2); see also Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l
Facts, No. 9 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1). Plaintiff explained
that Mr. Salinas had been there earlier to retrieve his
belongings, that she told him to leave, and that she was
unsure whether he was still inside the Residence.
See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 20-24 (Docket No. 20);
see also Pl.'s SOF, Nos. 4-5 (Docket No. 29,
Att. 2); see also Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l
Facts, No. 10 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1). Believing that
Plaintiff may not be telling him the truth about Mr.
Salinas's location, Detective Richardson informed her
that if Mr. Salinas was inside her home and she did not tell
officers that fact, she could get in trouble for harboring a
felon. See Defs.' SOF, No. 14 (Docket No. 33,
Att. 2); see also Pl.'s SOF, No. 6 (Docket No.
6); Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 13-16 (Docket No.
34, Att. 1). Feeling threatened, Plaintiff then informed
Detective Richardson that Mr. Salinas was inside the
Residence, that he had a firearm that she believed was a BB
gun, and that he had locked the chain lock on the front door.
See Pl.'s SOF, No. 7 (Docket No. 29, Att. 2);
see also Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No.
17-18 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1); Defs.' SOF, No. 14 (Docket
No. 33, Att. 2); but see Defs.' Stmt. of Disp.
Facts, No. 2 (Docket no. 33, Att. 2) (disputing that
Plaintiff felt threatened “solely because of
Richardson's questions, ” commenting: “Thus,
when Richardson informed her of the law of harboring a felon,
several other factors (such as her own actions of letting
Salinas into her home without informing police, when she knew
he had arrest warrants) weighed into any feelings she may
have had.”). A portion of the audio recording of the
conversation reflects the following:
Richardson: Is he in there?
Richardson: Okay. Do you have a key to the front door?
Plaintiff: He has the top lock locked.
Richardson: 21-201. Shaniz is advising he's inside .....
Richardson: So how certain are you that he's in there?
Plaintiff: [Inaudible] . . . and I have a pit bull. She's
Richardson: Okay. I heard the dog. So you think for certain
he's in there?
Richardson: Okay. She's 100 percent positive he's in
Defs.' Stmt. of Disp. Facts, No. 2 (Docket No. 33, Att.
After additional questioning - specifically, Detective
“Shaniz, let me ask you this: Do we have permission to
get inside your house and apprehend him?” - Plaintiff
ultimately gave Detective Richardson a key to the Residence
and gave him consent to use the key to enter the Residence
and arrest Mr. Salinas. See Am. Compl., ¶ 24
(Docket No. 20); see also Pl.'s SOF, Nos. 8-9
(Docket No. 29, Att. 2); Defs.' SOF, No. 17 (Docket No.
33, Att. 2); Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 19
(Docket No. 34, Att. 1). Though originally instructed to
stay close by, Plaintiff was later allowed to leave, and
actually left the premises, providing no additional consent
beyond that identified above. See Am. Compl., ¶
25 (Docket No. 20); see also Pl.'s SOF, Nos.
10-12 (Docket No. 29, Att. 2); Defs.' SOF, No. 18 (Docket
No. 33, Att. 2) (“Richardson wanted West to stay nearby
so ‘she could revoke consent at any time.'”)
(internal citations omitted); Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l
Facts, Nos. 34-35 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1).
Sergeant Hoadley then called the Canyon County Prosecuting
Attorney's Office and spoke with the on-call prosecutor.
See Defs.' SOF, No. 19 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2).
Sergeant Hoadley informed the prosecutor of the
“facts” and informed the prosecutor that officers
were entering the Residence to arrest a person with a felony
arrest warrant rather than conducting a search for drugs or
illegal items. See id. The prosecutor informed
Sergeant Hoadley that a search warrant was not needed if
consent was obtained. See id.
Sergeant Hoadley then contacted SWAT Commander Alan Seevers
and requested SWAT's assistance. See id. at No.
20; see also Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No.
21 (Docket No. 21 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1) (“Hoadley
initially considered making entry into the home using the
provided by Ms. West; determined it was too dangerous, and
then left the keys in the door and elected, instead, to call
According to Plaintiff, “Caldwell Police [did] not
inform [her] they [were] contacting SWAT or that any
“tactical plan” involving the potential
destruction of the Residence was under consideration or could
possibly be employed. See Pl.'s SOF, No. 14
(Docket No. 29, Att. 2); see also Pl.'s Stmt. of
Add'l Facts, No. 22, 24-26, 30-34 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1)
(“Hoadley did not advise Ms. West that he was going to
use a methodology other than the keys to enter West's
home ..... Richardson did not tell West that they were
contacting SWAT. He is unsure whether anyone else did.
Hoadley does not recall any discussion with West about
calling SWAT to the scene. Ms. West does not remember any of
the officers commenting that they were going to call SWAT
..... Seevers did not speak with anyone that evening
regarding West's concernsabout her house being destroyed and
whether she'd be able to return home with her children.
No. one had any discussions with West about the fact that gas
canisters would be shot into her home, through windows, and
doors. West did not give CPD permission to deploy a canister
of tear gas through her back door. West did not give CPD
permission to deploy tear gas through any other
windows.”) (internal citations omitted).
approximately 3:00 p.m., Commander Seevers notified SWAT Team
Leader Doug Winfield that SWAT was being activated “to
respond to a barricaded subject inside a residence.”
Defs.' SOF, No. 21 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2). Thereafter,
members of the SWAT Team met at the Caldwell Police
Department, put their tactical gear on, created a tactical
plan, and were briefed on the tactical plan's details.
See id. The tactical plan (developed by Team Leader
Winfield) was designed to extract Mr. Salinas from the
Residence without requiring SWAT members to go inside.
See id. The first step was to contain the Residence
and call out Mr. Salinas. See id. If Mr. Salinas did
not come out, the second step was to introduce tear gas into
the Residence to try and force him out. See id. If
the tear gas did not remove Mr. Salinas from the Residence,
the third step was to conduct a “limited breach of the
home, ” with the front door as the primary point of
entry, and the back door as the secondary point of entry in
the event the front door was barricaded. See id;
see also Pl.'s SOF, No. 15 (Docket No. 29, Att.
2) (initially stating that “SWAT gave no consideration
to the fact that West had given officers the key to her home,
” but going on to acknowledge nonetheless that
“[u]sing the key to enter the home and apprehend
Salinas is later described as a ‘possibility' but a
‘last resort.'”) (internal citations
omitted); Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 28-29
(Docket No. 34, Att. 1); but see Defs.' Stmt. of
Disp. Facts, No. 3 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2) (“If the
officers needed to breach the home, the third step of the
tactical plan required police officers to enter the home
through the front door using the key. In executing the plan,
police officers used the key to unlock the front door, but
the door was locked with a chain.”) (internal citations
omitted). Commander Seevers approved the tactical plan and
the SWAT Team “conducted dry runs at the police station
to practice the plan.” Defs.' SOF, No. 21 (Docket
No. 33, Att. 2).
SWAT Team (consisting of 18 officers) arrived at the
Residence at approximately 5:23 p.m., parking an armored
vehicle in front of the Residence. See id. at No.
25; see also Am. Compl., ¶ 28 (Docket No. 20).
Plaintiff was not there at this time. See Pl.'s
Stmt. of Add'l Facts, No. 36 (Docket No. 34, Att. 1). The
SWAT Team made PA announcements requesting Salinas to come
out of the Residence. See Defs. SOF, No. 25 (Docket
No. 33, Att. 2). Mr. Salinas did not come out. See
5:42 p.m., the SWAT Team deployed tear gas into the
Residence, using a 12-gauge shotgun to shoot tear gas
canisters through windows and, in one instance, the garage
door since the garage had no windows to shoot through.
See id.; see also Pl.'s SOF, Nos. 17-18
(Docket No. 29, Att. 2). The SWAT Team waited approximately
one-and-one-half hours for the tear gas to spread throughout
the Residence, continuing to call out Mr. Salinas in the
meantime. See id. Again, Mr. Salinas did not come
out. See Defs.' SOF, No. 25 (Docket No. 33, Att.
7:12 p.m., the SWAT Team attempted to enter the Residence,
using the key to unlock the front door and the deadbolt,
however the front door was chained shut. See id. The
entry team then moved to the secondary entry point (the back
door) - the glass in the back door was already removed from
deploying the tear gas, so the entry team was able to make
entry by reaching an arm through the broken glass and
unlocking the back door. See id.; see also
Pl.'s SOF, No. 20 (Docket No. 29, Att. 2). After entering
the Residence, the entry team “held” and called
out for Mr. Salinas, but received no response. Defs.'
SOF, No. 25 (Docket No. 33, Att. 2). The entry team continued
to move into the Residence, hold, and then call out for Mr.
Salinas. See id.
Eventually, the entry team searched the entire Residence but
Salinas was not located; indeed, he had apparently left ...