The federal Martin Huizar lawsuit ended on June 9, 2026, when U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee signed a stipulated order dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be refiled. Adele Shirey and her daughter Destiny Shirey had sued Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Martin Huizar, three other deputies, and the County of Riverside in June 2025 over a warrantless entry into Shirey’s Winchester home on July 4, 2024, that was captured on video and drew millions of views online. Under the dismissal, each side bore its own costs and fees, and the court record does not disclose whether money changed hands.
What the Deputy Did on July 4, 2024
Huizar responded to a noise complaint at Adele Shirey’s home while she was hosting a gathering. A guest opened the front door, saw the deputy, and tried to close it to alert Shirey. Huizar blocked the door and walked inside without a warrant or an invitation.
According to the complaint, he refused to step back outside when Shirey asked him to, telling her, “I am telling you, now that I am inside your house, I own your house,” and, when she said she knew her rights, “I don’t care if you know your rights.” After Shirey warned about her dog and stepped toward him, Huizar grabbed her, slammed her against an interior wall, pulled her outside, pushed her against an outdoor wall, handcuffed her, and arrested her in front of her daughter and other guests. After she was placed in a patrol vehicle, deputies re-entered the home, again without a warrant, to question the people still inside.
Residents recorded the encounter. An original YouTube posting drew roughly 23,000 views, and a longer version on a police accountability channel added hundreds of thousands more.
The Criminal Charge Against Shirey Was Dropped
On August 13, 2024, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office charged Shirey with one misdemeanor count of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer under California Penal Code Section 148. The charge was dismissed the following month at the DA’s request. The San Bernardino Sun reported the dismissal was made “in the interest of justice.” The DA’s office did not publicly explain its reasoning. That dismissal later became the foundation for the malicious prosecution claim in the federal suit.
What the Federal Lawsuit Alleged
Adele and Destiny Shirey filed suit on June 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside Division, as Adele Shirey et al v. County of Riverside et al (Case No. 5:25-cv-01541-DMG-E). Along with Huizar and the county, the complaint named Deputies Jared Anderson, Jacob Fontana, and Son Ly.
The Shireys brought Fourth Amendment claims on four theories:
- Unlawful entry into the home without a warrant or exigent circumstances.
- Excessive force and battery during the arrest.
- Malicious prosecution based on the later-dismissed Section 148 charge.
- A second warrantless entry after the arrest, when deputies went back inside to question guests and children.
The plaintiffs were represented by Dale K. Galipo and Benjamin Stamler Levine of the Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo. The defense was handled by Eugene P. Ramirez and Kayleigh Andersen of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.
Why the Warrantless Entry Was the Core of the Case
Police generally cannot enter a home without a warrant. In Caniglia v. Strom (2021), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the “community caretaking” exception, which courts had applied to vehicles, does not extend to the home. Warrantless entry remains lawful in narrow circumstances, most often when officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously hurt or in imminent danger. Galipo told the San Bernardino Sun a noise complaint does not meet that bar: “Law enforcement cannot enter a home without a warrant or exigent circumstances, and none of that existed.”
How the Case Ended
The lawsuit did not reach trial. On June 9, 2026, Judge Gee signed an order dismissing the entire action with prejudice based on a stipulation between the parties. Each side agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and all previously scheduled deadlines were vacated. Stipulated dismissals of this type typically keep any settlement figure private, and the court record here does not disclose whether a payment was made or what other terms the parties agreed to.
What Happened to Deputy Huizar
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office opened an administrative investigation after the video spread. In early September 2024, the department said “a thorough investigation will be completed to include an administrative investigation to determine if discipline is warranted.” A separate complaint was filed against Huizar on September 6, 2024, through the Giglio-Brady List, alleging abuse of authority, false arrest, and use of force.
As of November 2024, the Desert Sun reported the status of the internal investigation was unclear because the department had not answered follow-up questions. By mid-2025, a department spokesperson confirmed Huizar was still employed but had been pulled off patrol and reassigned to court services. The public record does not show any later change to his employment status tied to the resolution of the lawsuit.