Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher FOSTER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SPOKANE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35056
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 19, 2017 Seattle, Washington
    Filed May 26, 2017
    Richard David Wall, Attorney, Richard D. Wall, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Heather C. Yakely, Attorney, Evans, Craven & Lackie, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Foster, Shannell Haddon, Lawrence Johnson, and Dina Tellez (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment grant to Spokane County, David Skogen and Craig Chamberlain (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs argue summary judgment was improper as to their unlawful arrest and false arrest claims against Defendant Skogen, and as to their defamation claim against Defendant Chamberlain. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. At the time of Plaintiffs’ arrests, the facts and circumstances within Defendant Skogen’s knowledge were sufficient for a reasonable officer to believe that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs on suspicion of trafficking. See Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Accordingly, Defendant Skogen was entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unlawful arrest claim. See id.

2. The district court also properly granted summary judgment to Defendant Sko-gen on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claim. Lydia’s tip satisfied both Aguilar-Spinelli prongs. See State v. Conner, 58 Wash.App. 90, 791 P.2d 261, 265 (1990). Because Defendant Skogen was “aware of facts or circumstances, based on reasonably trustworthy information, sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to believe a crime ha[d] been committed,” State v. Gaddy, 152 Wash.2d 64, 93 P.3d 872, 875 (2004) (en banc) (emphasis omitted), probable cause existed for Plaintiffs’ arrests, and Defendant Skogen was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claim, see Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wash.2d 552, 852 P.2d 295, 301 (1993) (en banc); see also Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2010).

3.In addition, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendant Chamberlain on Plaintiffs’ defamation claim. Plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute that Defendant Chamberlain abused the qualified privilege that protects a police officer’s statements to the press in the course of a criminal investigation. See Stansfield v. Douglas County, 107 Wash. App. 20, 26 P.3d 935, 942-43 (2001).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.