Cindy Saban v. Lake Oswego Police Department
Opinion
Opinion
facts, we do not recount them here. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm.
Where the facts are undisputed—as they are here—qualified immunity is “a
pure question of law.” Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 n.8 (2007)). “[Q]ualified
immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “Even
law enforcement officials who ‘reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable
cause is present’ are entitled to immunity.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227
(1991) (per curiam) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)).
The Sabans argue that Officer Anderson’s affidavit did not establish
probable cause to search their home or vehicle. However, even if the warrant were
invalid, Officer Anderson acted in an objectively reasonable manner. The fact that