Deen
Deen v. Corning City
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
1. The district court did not err in concluding that Officer Jellison was entitled to qualified immunity. Deen failed to “establish both a substantial showing of the deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth of the statements in [Jellison’s report and affidavit] and the materiality of *676 those statements to the ultimate determination of probable cause.” Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 789 (9th Cir.1995). It is undisputed that Jellison confirmed the existence of a valid restraining order with dispatch after Shatswell called police about Deen’s violation of the order, that Jellison’s report contained no material misstatements or omissions and that he attached to his affidavit true copies of the two restraining orders for review by his superiors. It makes no difference that the December 22, 1998, restraining order had not been served on Deen. As Jellison’s report accurately disclosed, an almost identical order was served on October 18, 1998.
Jellison’s romantic involvement with Shatswell and the District Attorney’s subsequent dismissal of all charges against Deen did not transform a proper complaint supported by probable cause into one that was not.