Goodwin

MEMORANDUM *

Following the denial of his Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, San Bernadino City Police Officer Joseph Shuck (“Shuck”) appeals, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity. Resolving, as we must, factual disputes in the favor of the nonmoving party, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod,., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc’n, 365 F.3d 835 , 839 (9th Cir.2004), we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to the false arrest claim but affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Goodwin’s in-home arrest claim.

Shuck had probable cause to arrest Goodwin because he had actual or imputed knowledge of Goodwin’s violations of local laws. See United, States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 704 (9th Cir.2005). A custodial arrest for a minor, fine-only offense does not violate the Fourth Amendment, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 , 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001), and Shuck is therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Goodwin’s false arrest claim.

At trial, Goodwin testified that Shuck opened her front door before arresting…