Hinrichs

MEMORANDUM **

Connie Vietz, a prosecuting attorney for the County of Ada, Idaho, appeals from the district court’s denial of her summary judgment motion based upon her claim of qualified immunity. We reverse.

We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal and reverse because our review of the record demonstrates that there are no issues of material fact and Vietz is entitled to immunity as a matter of law. See Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir.2000); Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir.1997). Of course, even where the district court perceives a material dispute of fact, the defendant can assert on appeal *737 that no material dispute really exists. See Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir.1996).

That is the case here. We start with the familiar proposition that when Vietz was performing her discretionary duties, qualified immunity attached unless “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness” of her actions was “apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). When a prosecutor, who is seeking a warrant, omits some information, she is still entitled to a grant of…