Judge thins ex-attorney’s search-and-seizure claims against Yolo County sheriff

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal lawsuit filed by a former attorney with dementia against a California sheriff’s office over an improper search warrant and seizure of guns hit a stumbling block after a judge dismissed a handful of claims.

However, some claims filed by Anthony and Christine DeMaria against the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office and some of its staff remain pending, and the DeMarias have a chance to amend their suit.

In their suit, filed last year in the Eastern District of California, the DeMarias claim sheriff’s officials got a search warrant and seized over 30 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition after he called dispatch about his wife in April 2023.

Suffering from dementia, Anthony DeMaria thought his wife was with a deputy, long-time acquaintance James Mount. He called dispatch, saying “they better find him damn fast.” He added that hell would break loose once they were found and that it would cost the sheriff’s office money.

Anthony DeMaria then called another deputy, Michael Glaser. The DeMarias claim that Glaser played a large role in getting the search warrant and seizing the guns and ammunition.

“He repeated his mistaken belief that Deputy Mount had taken his wife, he demanded her return, he threatened to sue, and he said there would soon be one less deputy working for the sheriff,” U.S. District Court Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller recounted in her Wednesday decision.

Mount learned about the phone call and went to the DeMaria home, spoke with Anthony DeMaria and left. Mount later said he didn’t fear for his safety — a point Mueller would raise in part of her ruling.

Two days after the phone call, the sheriff’s office wrote an affidavit to support a search warrant. That affidavit described the recent phone call, as well as prior incidents involving Anthony DeMaria that had been tinged with violence.

Deputy Robert Middleman wrote in the affidavit that Anthony DeMaria was dangerous and violent and had threatened Mount’s life. However, he didn’t state that Mount visited DeMaria and didn’t fear for his life, Mueller wrote.

Deputies executed the search warrant, put Anthony DeMaria in handcuffs — but didn’t arrest him — and seized the guns and ammunition, most from locked gun safes. The DeMarias claim Anthony was forcibly thrown into a police vehicle.

The DeMarias say their Second Amendment rights were violated when the deputies took the firearms, that the search and seizure were illegal, that the deputies used excessive force, and that the sheriff’s office has an unconstitutional policy to seize guns from people. The sheriff’s office filed a motion to dismiss.

On Wednesday, Mueller dismissed a search-and-seizure claim against the sheriff, sheriff’s office and deputies involved except for Middleman, who wrote the affidavit. While two of the DeMarias’ arguments failed to convince Mueller, the judge noted Middleman didn’t mention Mount had reported he felt no fear when speaking to Anthony DeMaria.

“Rather than a story of an armed and dangerous man in deteriorating mental health with a history of threats and assaults, the affidavit may very well have told a story of a confused and elderly lawyer wielding verbal threats of implausible but decidedly nonviolent litigation,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller dismissed a Second Amendment claim, calling it duplicative, though she gave the DeMarias the option of amending their suit.

The excessive force claim was dismissed against the named defendants, though Mueller allowed it to continue against the unidentified defendants to help the discovery process as the suit progresses, she wrote.

The final claim focusing on the sheriff’s office seizing guns without probable cause or evidence also was dismissed, though the DeMarias can amend it.

“In addition to a policy or custom, the DeMarias allege the sheriff’s office has not disciplined officers who have illegally searched for and seized firearms,” Mueller wrote. “This generic allegation does not suffice to survive dismissal, as it does little more than reiterate the applicable legal test.”