Timothy Miller, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in his lawsuit against the County of Thurston and two police officers. Miller alleged constitutional violations stemming from his arrest and prosecution for domestic violence crimes. His claims included a Fourth Amendment challenge to the probable cause for his arrest, a Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging discriminatory enforcement of the law, and a Second Amendment challenge regarding firearm restrictions imposed on him. The district court had ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that Miller had not provided enough evidence to create a factual dispute on any of these issues.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision on three distinct grounds. First, regarding the Fourth Amendment, the court applied the standard that probable cause exists when there is a fair probability of criminal activity based on the total circumstances known to the officer. The court found that Miller failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for assault in the fourth degree and malicious mischief in the third degree under Washington state law. Second, on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court reiterated that an equal protection claim based on discriminatory enforcement requires proof of a discriminatory purpose. The court held that Miller failed to present evidence creating a factual dispute that the officers acted with such intent. Third, regarding the Second Amendment, the court noted that liability under Section 1983 requires a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation. The court found no evidence that the officers personally participated in imposing any firearm restriction. Furthermore, the court cited United States v. Rahimi, noting that firearm bans are consistent with the Second Amendment when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
The decision leaves the district court's ruling in favor of the officers and the county intact. Miller's Section 1983 claims are dismissed, meaning he cannot proceed with his lawsuit based on the current record. The ruling reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs to overcome summary judgment in civil rights cases involving domestic violence arrests, particularly when probable cause is established under state law and when firearm restrictions are tied to credible threat findings. It also clarifies that officers are not personally liable for firearm restrictions they did not directly impose, provided those restrictions align with constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download