Dirks

MEMORANDUM *

Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department officers appeal the district court’s order denying in part their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 by Professor Charles Dirks (“Dirks”). The officers — Sargent Joe Grasso (“Grasso”) and Deputies Ricky Baker and Darren Inana (“Baker” and “Inana”) — brought the renewed motion after a jury deadlocked on Dirks’s unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims.

We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo, taking all disputed facts in the light most favorable to Dirks, the non-moving party. Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir.2010). A Sheriffs Department employee recorded the events leading up to Dirks’s arrest on video, and Dirks made an audio recording. Viewing and hearing the recordings, we agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

1. The district court correctly concluded that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on Dirks’s unlawful arrest claim. At the time of Dirks’s arrest, it was clearly established that an officer must have probable cause to execute a warrantless…

I dissent. I believe the officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims made by Professor Dirks and would reverse.

Firstly, the officers are entitled to immunity on Dirks’ unlawful arrest claim “unless [their] conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 813 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Dirks argues that he had a constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause. “The Supreme Court has ‘recognized that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present.’” Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco, 558 F.3d 964, 968-69 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). “The qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991). Thus, the question is whether a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause to arrest existed. If so, the officers here are entitled…