E.D.Cal.: No 4A right to be detained and interrogated in a certain way

There is no Fourth Amendment right to be detained and interrogated in a certain way more to one’s liking. Hendrix v. City of Madera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163446 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2023)*:

It appears Plaintiff alleges is the Fourth Amendment violation for improper interrogation. A Fourth Amendment claim cannot be based merely on “an officer’s erroneous assumptions about the evidence he has received,” or on “[o]missions or misstatements resulting from negligence or good faith mistakes.” Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Smith, 588 F.2d 737, 739-40 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating that an officer “made certain erroneous assumptions on the basis of the information he received; but this does not amount to the reckless inclusion of false statements in his affidavit”); Rhabarian v. Cawley, 2013 WL 4049600, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (noting that “a merely sloppy investigation culminating in a search warrant — without a showing of deliberation or recklessness — will not support a judicial-deception claim”), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 546015 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014), aff’d, 701 F. App’x 676 (9th Cir. 2017).

To the extent Plaintiff is alleging he was coerced into certain statements, there is no constitutional right to be interviewed in any particular way. “[M]ere allegations that Defendants used interviewing techniques that were in some sense improper, or that violated state regulations, without more, cannot serve as the basis for a claim under § 1983.” See Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (noting interviewers “must be permitted to exercise some discretion in deciding when to accept initial denials at face value and when to reject them (or withhold judgment on them) and proceed further”). Plaintiff has been unable to cure this deficiency.