NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
IM A N JONES, ) No. 12-15903 ) Pla intiff - Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01874-LR H -R JJ ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) LAS VEGAS M ETR OPOLITAN ) POLIC E DEPAR TM ENT; ) GAR N C R OSSM AN; DANIEL ) R OSEQUIST; JOSHUA GIESE, ) ) De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 4, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, FER NANDEZ, a

nd IKUTA, C irc u i t Judge s. Im an Jone s a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor 

# FIL ED
NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of Offic e r Garn C rossm an a nd the La s Ve ga s M e tropolita n Polic e De pa

rtm e nt (LVM PD). W e a ffirm
. All of Jone s’ c l a im s on a

ppe a l re st on his a sse rtion tha t his rights unde

r the Fourth Am e ndm e n t

to the Unite d State s C onstitution we re viola te d be c a u se Offic e r C rossm an a

rre s te d him without proba ble c a u se . W e disa gre e with tha t a sse rtion. W e have c are fully

re vie we d the re c ord a

nd a gre e with thedistric t

c o urt tha t on the fa c ts pre se nte d proba ble c a use e xiste d be c a

use “ unde r the tota l ity

of
c irc um s ta nc e s known to the

arre sting offic e rs, a

prude nt pe rson would ha v e
c onc lude d tha

t the re wa s a

fa ir proba

bility that [Jone s] ha d

c om m i tte d a c rim e .” C onne r v. He im an, 672 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks
om i tte d); se e a lso Unite d State s v. Gourde , 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ); Pe ng v. Pe nghu, 335 F.3d 970, 976 (9th C ir. 2003). The re wa s m ore tha n suffic ie nt c orroboration for thevic t im -witne s s’ a sse rtion tha t Jone s ha d pointe d a fire arm at him , inc l uding thedisc ove ry of a gun unde r the se at of Jone s’ s truc k tha t m atc he d the de sc ription of the vic tim -witne ss. Se e Pe ng, 335 F.3d a t 978–79; Fuller v. M .G. Je w e lry , 950 F.2d 1437, 1444–45 (9th C ir. 1991). B e c a use the re wa s no viola

tion of Jone s’ c onstitutiona l rights, Offic e r C rossm an wa s
e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity from 42 U.S.C . § 1983 lia

bility at the first step of the re quire d a

na ly sis. Se e Pe arson v. C a lla ha n, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S. Ct. 808, 2815–16, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). Sim ila rly , a bse nt a c onstitutiona

l viola tion, LVM PD did not incur § 1983 lia bility 1 for the offic e r’ s a c tions. 2 Fina lly , be c a use Jone s’ re m a ining c la im s a l so re st on his a sse rtion tha t his a rre s t wa s unla

wful, the y
a lso fa il. AFFIRM ED.

1 Se e M one ll v. Dep’ t of Soc . Se rvs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–91, 98 S. C t. 2018, 2035–36, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978).

2 Ville ga s v. Gilroy

Ga rlic Fe stiva l Ass’ n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ); Pa lm e rin v. C ity

of R ive rside , 794 F.2d 1409, 1414–15 (9th C ir. 1986).

3