N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ALC OLM L. LANDR

Y, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IKE B ERR

Y, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-17588

D.C . No. 3:10-c v-04707-R S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 25, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, C ALLAHAN, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M ike B e rry , a

C a l ifornia

Highwa y Pat rol offic e r, a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse . 

# FIL ED JUL 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.“ [W ] e are not pre c lude d from he aring this inte

rloc utory a ppe a l m e re ly be c a use the re are issue s of fa c t in dispute .” W ilk ins v . C ity of Oak land, 350 F.3d 949, 951 (9th C ir. 2003). W e m ay “ de te rm ine if the de nia l of qua lifie d im m unity wa s prope r by

a ssum ing tha

t the ve rsion of e ve nts offe re d by [M a l c olm Lan dry ] is c orre c t.” Id. W e do not c onside r whe the r a c onstitutiona

l viola t ion oc c urre d a

nd de c ide only tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t B e rry wa s not e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . Se ePe arson v . C

allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 235–36 (2009). “ E v e n la w e nforc e m e nt offic ia l s who ‘ re a sona bly but m ista ke nly c onc l ude tha

t proba ble c a use is pre se nt’ are e ntitle d to im m unity . ” H unte r v . Bry ant , 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (quoting Ande rson v . C

re i ghton , 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)). “ [A] n offic e r who m ake s a re a sona ble m i sta ke a s to wha

t the la wre quire s unde r a

give n se t of c irc um s ta nc e s is e ntitle d to theim

m unity de fe nse .” Boy d v . Be n ton C nty . , 374 F.3d 773, 781 (9th C ir. 2004). W e c onc lude tha t it would not ha

ve be e n “ c le ar to a re a s ona ble offic e r that [B e rry ’ s] c onduc t wa s unla wful in thesitua

t ion he c onfronte d,” Sauc ie r v . K atz , 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001), be c a use the re is no de c isiona l a

uthority in this or othe

r c irc uits e sta

blishing tha

t de ta ining some one unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s B e rry

c onfronte d

— re pe ate d c om pla i nts a bout La n dry ’ s ine xplic a bly e rra tic driving, thec ha otic sta te of his c a

r, obse rvations of fre sh 2dam a ge to his c ar and a ne arby gua rdra il, his re fusa l to a

b ide by instruc tions to re m a in a t a hote l until he

c ould be pic ke d up, a

nd his puz z ling re s ponse s to B e rry ’ s que stions—

is unc o n stitutiona

l. Se eStoot v . C

ity of Ev e re tt , 582 F.3d 910, 922 (9th C ir. 2009). B e rry ’ s c o nduc t wa s not “ so pa te ntly viola tive ” of La

ndry ’ s rights tha

t he would ha

ve known “without guida nc e from the c ourts” tha

t his a c tions we re unla wful. Boy d , 374 F.3d a

t 781 (quoting De orle

v . Ruthe rford

, 272 F.3d 1272, 1286 (9th C ir. 2001)). Ac c ordingly , B e rry is e ntitle d to sum m a ry judgm e nt on the ba sis of qua lifie d

im m unity . RE V E RSE D.

3