Hernandez

MEMORANDUM **

Taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to Hernandez, the district court erred in denying Connolly’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Connolly did not violate Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment rights by arresting Hernandez for failure to produce either a valid service permit or an indorsed application for such a permit, as she was required to do under Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 471.360(l)(e), 471.375(1). Connolly was legally in the establishment and had the authority to inspect Hernandez’s paperwork under Or. Admin. R. 845 -006-0345(4)(a). When Hernandez failed to produce a valid service permit or indorsed application, she committed a misdemeanor in clear view of Connolly, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 471.990, which gave Connolly sufficient probable cause to arrest her, see Virginia v. Moore, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1607 , 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008) (‘We conclude that warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitu-

tion.”). Connolly’s actual motivations for the arrest are irrelevant given the existence of probable cause. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135…