Christopher Disnute v. City of Puyallup

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Appellees and rejected the Fourth Amendment and state law discrimination claims of Appellants Christopher Disnute, Phillip Currie, and P.C. (“Appellants”).

Appellants fail to show that the two officers (the “Officers”) improperly seized them in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. “A person is seized if taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We have identified a number of factors to guide our analysis of whether an encounter with police constitutes a seizure. These include: “(1) the number of officers; (2) whether weapons were displayed; (3) whether the encounter occurred in a public or non-public setting; (4) whether the officer’s tone or manner was authoritative, so as to imply that compliance would be com pelled; and (5) whether the officers informed the person of his right to terminate the encounter.”…