T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN T HO NY B E AS L E Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. CI TY OF KEI ZE R; J OH N TEAGU E, C apt a i n; J E F F K U H N S , C apt a i n; T IM O T H Y S . L A T H R O P , D et ec t i ve; J O H N TRO N CO SO , Sg t . ; LO RI EV A N S; K A TI E SU V ER, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35591 DC No . 6 : 0 9 c v - 6 2 5 6 AA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nn L . A i ke n, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 4, 2013

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: T A S H IM A , C L IF T O N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff A ntho ny B ea sl eyappeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j udgm e nti n f

a vorof D e f e nda nt s . B e a s l e ya s s e rt s c l a i m s unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 

# FI LED MA Y14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he D i stri ctA tt orneys concede thi s i ss ue on appeal , bu tthe O ff i ce rs 1 d o n o t.

- 2- a g a in s t D e p u tyD is tr ic t A tto rn e y s L o r i E v a n s a n dK a tie S u v e ro f M a r io n C o u n ty ( to g e th e r , th e “D is tr ic t A tto rn e y s ” ) , a n da g a in s t O f f ic e rT im o th yL a th r o p , C ap ta in John T ea gu e, C apt ai n Jef f K uh ns, and S er geantJohn T roncoso o f the K ei ze r P ol i ce D e pa rtm e nt( c ol l e c t i ve l y , the “ O f f i c e r s ” ) . B e a s l e ya l l e ge s F ourth A m e ndm e nt vi ol a t i ons s t e m m i ng f

r om the 2007 s e a r c h of

hi s r e s i de nc e a nd hi s s ubs e que nt a rr e s t, w h ic h a r o s e in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is u n d is p u te dp r o d u c tio n o f h a s h is h o il. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton the grou nd that , even i f there w as no pr obabl e c aus e t o be l i e ve tha tB e a s l e yha d vi ol a t e d s t a t e l a w , the r e w a s no F ou rth A m endm entvi ol at i on because probabl e c ause exi st ed thatB ea sl eyhad vi ol a t e d the f

e de r a l C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e s A c t , 21 U . S . C . § 801 e t s e q. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 1. T he r e l e va ntO r e gon s t a tut e s a nd c a s e l a w e s t abl i s h tha tthe r e w a s no prob abl e c ause of a s t at e l aw vi ol at i on . B ea sl eyw as re gi st er ed t o g row m edi ca l 1 m a r iju a n ain h is h o m e p u r s u a n t to th e O r e g o n M e d ic a l M a r iju a n aA c t ( “O M M A ” ) . O r. R ev. S t at . § 4 75 . 30 2 p rovi des that , for purpo se s of O M M A , “ m ar i j uana” has th e m e a n in g g iv e n th a t te rm in O r . R e v . S ta t. § 4 7 5 .0 0 5 . See O r . R e v . S ta t. § 475. 302( 6) . I n S ta te v. N ess , 635 P . 2d 1025, 1029- 30 ( O r . C t . A pp. 1981) , theT h ere i s n o su g g est i o n th atB easl ey w as n o ti n co n fo rm i ty th ese 2 r e q u ir e d c o n d itio n s . See O r . R e v . S ta t. § 4 7 5 .3 0 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) - ( b ) ; see a l so O r . R e v . S ta t. § 4 7 5 .3 2 0 .

- 3- O r e g o n C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls h e ldth a t m a r iju a n a , h a s h is h , a n dh a s h is h o il a ll f a ll un der § 47 5. 00 5’ s def

i ni t i on of “ m ar i

j uana. ” See al

so State v . H

asse lba ck, 670 P . 2d 632, 632 ( O r . C t . A pp. 1983) . T hus , O M M A ’ s pr ot e c t i ons f orm a r i j ua na ap p ly , b yd e f

in itio n , to h a s h is h o il. P r ovi de d tha tc e rt a i n c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , O M M A e xe m pt s l i c e ns e d pe r s ons 2

“ f r om the c r i m i na l l a w s of the s t a t e f

orpos s e s s i on, de l i ve ryorpr oduc t i on of m a r i j ua na . ” O r . R e v. S t a t . § 475. 309( 1) . T he O r e gon s t a tut e r e l i e d upon bythe D i stri ctA tt orneys and the O ff i ce rs atthe t i m e of the se ar ch and arre st , w hi ch p r o h ib its th e m a n u f

a c tu r in g o f

c o n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e s w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 o f as c h o o l, f

a lls w ith in th e s c o p e o f

th is e x e m p tio n . See O r. R ev. S t at . § 4 75 . 90 4. A s s uch, there w a s n o b a s is f

o rs ta te c r im in a l liab ility . 2. B e a s le y ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t c la im s n e v e rth e le s s f a il b e c au s e b o th th e O f f ic e r s a n d th e D is tr ic t A tto rn e y s a r e e n title dto q u a lif ie dim m u n ity . Q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty sh i el d s g o v ern m en to ffi ci al s fro m ci v i l l i ab i l i ty u n l ess a pl ai nt i ff dem on stra t es : “ (1) thatthe offi ci al vi ol at ed a s t atut ory or c on st i tut i on al ri gh t , and (2) thatthe ri gh tw as ‘ cl earl y e st abl i shed’ atthe t i m e of the chal l enged cond uct . ” A s hc r of

t v . al- Ki dd , 131 S . C t . 2074, 2080 ( 2011) . H e r e , w e gr a nt- 4-

q u a lif ie d im m u n ityu n d e rth e la tte rp r o n g o f th is f r a m e w o rkw ith o u t th e n e e dto d e c id e w h e th e rth e r e w a s a n u n d e r ly in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See P ears on v. Cal lahan , 55 5 U . S . 22 3, 22 7 (20 09 ) ( perm i tt i ng i nq ui ryi nt o ei ther prong fi rs t ). E v e n a s s u m in g , ar

gue ndo , tha tourde c i s i on i n U ni te d State s v . $186, 416. 00 i n U. S. C urre ncy , 59 0 F . 3d 94 2 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), supp ort ed B ea sl ey ’ s c on st i tut i on al c la im , th a t d e c is io n p o s td a te d th e e v e n ts in q u e s tio n b ys e v e r a l y e a r s . B e a s le yis un abl e t o p oi ntt o any j ud i ci al op i ni on pri or t o O ct ob er20 07 ho l di ng thata s earc h c o n d u c te d b ylo c a l o f

f ic ia ls v io la te s th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t w h e n th o s e o f f ic ia ls do no thave prob abl e c ause of a s t at e vi ol at i on bu tdo have prob abl e c ause of a f e de r a l vi ol a t i on. B e c aus e e xi s t i ng pr e c e de nthar dl y“ pl a c e d the s t a tut oryor const i tut i on al qu es t i on beyond debat e, ” al- Ki dd , 13 1 S . C t . at20 83 , B ea sl ey c a nnotde m ons tr a t e the vi ol a t i on of ac l e ar l ye s t abl i s he d r i ght . T hus , both the D is tr ic t A tto rn e y s a n d th e O f f ic e r s a r e e n title dto q u a lif ie dim m u n ity . T he O ff i ce rs ar e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty on the addi t i on al grou nd that they r ea sonabl y r el i ed on the D i stri ctA tt orneys ’ l egal advi ce . A l tho ug h rel i ance on apr os e c ut or ’ s l e ga l a dvi c e “ w i l l notaut om a t i c a l l yi ns ul a t e a n of f i c e rf r om l i abi l i ty, i tgo es far t o est abl i sh qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. ” E w i ng v . C i t yof Stoc kton , 588 F . 3d 1218, 1231 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the D i s tr i c tA tt orne y s r e nde r e d a dvi c e on apur e l yl e ga l que s t i on, the- 5-

a ns w e rf orw hi c h r e qui r e d apr ope rr e a di ng of ac om pl e x s t a tut orys c he m e a nd ap p lic ab le c a s e la w . I n d e e d , O f f ic e rL a th r o p p r o c e e d e dp r e c is e lya s o n e w o u ld w antan offi ce r t o p roce ed un der the ci rc um st ance s – un sure of a nov el l egal que s t i on, he c ons ul t e d w i th apr os e c ut orf orgui da nc e . T hus , the O f f i c e r s w e r e not

“ pl ai nl y i ncom pet ent , ” nor di d they “ kn ow i ng l y vi ol at e the l aw , ” and qu al i fi ed im m u n ityis ap p r o p r ia te . al- Ki dd , 131 S . C t . a t2085 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.