Michael Munywe v. Scott Peters

facts as to whether the defendants committed any constitutional violation during

his search and interrogation. See Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th

Cir. 2002) (requirements of substantive due process claim); Ioane v. Hodges, 939

F.3d 945, 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (requirements of due process privacy claim);

Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (requirements of equal

protection claim). Law enforcement officers’ method of searching Munywe and

the exigent circumstances necessitating his search distinguish this case from the

2 Fourth Amendment violation found in Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629

F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. 2011). Munywe’s factual basis for his Fifth Amendment

claim is belied by clear and unrefuted video evidence. See Scott v. Harris, 550

U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (holding courts should “view[] the facts in the light depicted

by the videotape” and “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of

which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could

believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling

on a motion for summary judgment”).

Munywe’s contention…