Gallagher

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants (“defendants” or “officers”) on the ground of qualified immunity. Our review is de novo, Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Research Found. Inc., 188 F.3d 1105, 1113 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. Qualified immunity

Under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), we must first determine, as to each claim, “whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” 2 Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, if the officers violated a constitutional right, we inquire whether *572 that right was ‘clearly established’ when viewed in the context of the case.” Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.2003). We review each of the plaintiffs’ claims in turn.

A. Fourth Amendment claims

1. Warrantless entry

There is no dispute that the police here lacked a warrant. The officers, 3 however, contend that their warrantless entry was justified by one of two exceptions to…