Malcolm Landry v. Mike Berry

MEMORANDUM

Mike Berry, a California Highway Patrol officer, appeals from the district court’s denial of summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

“[W]e are not precluded from hearing this interlocutory appeal merely because there are issues of fact in dispute.” Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir.2003). We may “determine if the denial of qualified immunity was proper by assuming that the version of events offered by [Malcolm Landry] is correct.” Id.

We do not consider whether a constitutional violation occurred and decide only that the district court erred in holding that Berry was not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 235-36 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). “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 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). “[A]n officer who makes a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires under a given set of circumstances is entitled to…