Peebles

MEMORANDUM *

Gary Peebles appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant Yamhill County, and defendants James W. Carelle and Paul Groh of the Yamhill County Sheriffs Department. Peebles brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that he was falsely arrested for illegally videotaping an incident between himself and a neighbor. He also asserted related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We need not state the facts because the parties are familiar with them. The determinative issue is whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Peebles. Probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under both federal and Oregon law. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.1995) (malicious prosecution as a basis for federal due process claim); Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores N.W., Inc., 269 Or. 354 , 525 P.2d 118, 119-20 (Or.1974) (state malicious prosecution); Bacon v. City of Tigard, 81 Or. *645 App. 147 , 724 P.2d 885 (Or.Ct.App.1986) (state false arrest). It is also a complete defense to Peebles’s section 1983 claim. Beauregard v. Wingard, 362 F.2d 901, 903…