Ninth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity Over 36-Day Warrant Delay

In Langham v. Noyd, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to a police officer who waited 36 days to obtain a warrant to search a seized cellphone. The panel held that the delay violated the Fourth Amendment because it was longer than reasonably necessary under clearly established law.

The court relied in part on Riley v. California (2014), where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the heightened privacy interests in modern cellphones and required warrants before searching them. While the initial seizure of the phone was lawful, the extended delay in seeking judicial authorization was not. Langham v. Noyd (2025).

“Busy” Is Not a Constitutional Exception

The officer argued that he was busy and dealing with rising crime. The court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing there is no “busy schedule” exception to the Fourth Amendment.

Notably, the warrant was obtained the same day the plaintiff requested the phone’s return, and it relied only on facts known at the time of seizure. The court found this showed the delay could have been avoided had the officer acted diligently.

Judge Bumatay dissented, arguing that no prior case clearly established that a 36-day delay violated the Constitution. In his view, qualified immunity should have applied.

Second Ruling: Improper Vehicle Impoundment

In Langham v. Spencer, the same panel affirmed the denial of qualified immunity in a related case. The court held that the “community caretaking” doctrine did not justify impounding a vehicle where the driver was not arrested, the car posed no hazard, and officers failed to consider reasonable alternatives.

The panel reiterated that an unlawful impoundment cannot support a valid inventory search. Again, Judge Bumatay dissented. Langham v. Spencer (2025).

Important Points for Litigators

These decisions reinforce two important principles:

• Officers must act diligently when seeking warrants for seized property.
• Impoundment under the community caretaking doctrine requires careful, fact-specific justification.

For practitioners, these cases underscore how delay and procedural missteps can defeat qualified immunity and expose municipalities and officers to §1983 liability.

For catastrophic injury cases requiring strategic guidance from intake through trial and beyond, we are available to collaborate or accept referrals.

Sharing is caring: