Lakiesha McCall v. Jeremy Jacobitz

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 18, 202120-15724California556 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts show a violation of a constitutional right and (ii) the constitutional right was

clearly established at the time of the violation. Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner, 969

F.3d 930, 937 (9th Cir. 2020). A right is clearly established if the state of the law

at the time of the adverse action gave the officers fair warning that their conduct

was unconstitutional. Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049, 1064 (9th Cir.

2013). “[I]n an obvious case, [general] standards can ‘clearly establish’ the

3 answer, even without a body of relevant case law.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.

194, 199 (2004).

The Officers raise three issues in this appeal. First, the Officers argue that

they are entitled to qualified immunity for their decision to continue detaining

McCall solely so that The D could issue him a trespass warning. We disagree.

It was clearly established in 2017 that a Terry-stop detainee must

immediately be released once the investigation fails to elicit probable cause to

arrest. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (holding that a Terry stop “must

be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the

stop”). It was also clearly…

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.