Pompano

MEMORANDUM **

Donald Jones, a sergeant with the Her-mosa Beach Police Department, appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on his assertion of qualified immunity from Mark Pompano’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We affirm.

Jones concedes that we should accept Pompano’s version of the material facts as true. Thus, we have jurisdiction to hear *533 this appeal. See Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 787 , 791 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003); see also Scott v. Harris, — U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1774-75 , 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). That being so, we must reach a single ineluctable conclusion, based on this record.

The evidence propounded by Pompano and the reasonable inferences therefrom would support a decision by a rational trier of fact 2 that Jones, a supervisor of the arresting officers, was well aware of the impropriety of their arrest of Pompano for being drunk in public and knew that he ought to order Pompano’s release forthwith. However, he continued to detain Pompano for the sole purpose of extracting a statement that would serve to protect the reputation or assets of the officers and the City. In short, a rational trier of fact could determine that Jones…