Edward Harvey v. County of Navajo

Good Law
586 F. App'x 368
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 4, 201412-16883California624 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court properly denied Edward Harvey’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to his claim for unlawful detention. Harvey argues that Deputy Adams had no reason to detain him after making what Harvey now concedes to be a lawful stop for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. But Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3903A granted Deputy Adams broad discretion to book or release Harvey. The jury was asked to decide whether Deputy Adams’ exercise of that discretion was reasonable, and found that it was. Our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir.1999). A reasonable jury could have concluded that awareness of past threats, regardless of their vintage, was enough for Deputy Adams to book Harvey. And because Harvey makes no allegation that he was not promptly presented to a neutral magistrate or that he was unlawfully denied his right to bail, any delay in releasing him after he was booked is attributable to the decisions of state judicial officers rather than to any decision of Deputy Adams.

For the reasons stated above, the district court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.