N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT W ENDY DALEY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B RENDEN M C KOY e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35540 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00718-B R
M EM O R ANDUM * a nd OR DER
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July

8, 2019 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, GR

A B ER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff W e ndy

Da le y a p pe a ls the sum

m ary judgm e nt e n te re d a ga inst he r on he r c la im s of a

n unc onstitutiona

l a rre st, fa lse arre st, a

nd ne glige nc e . On de novo
re vie w, a nd vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa v ora ble to Pla intiff, King v. C ounty of Los Ange le s , 885 F.3d 548, 556 (9th C ir. 2018), we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 10 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1. The De fe nda n t Offic e rs ha d proba

ble c a use to a rre st Pla intiff be c a

use the y ha d " re a sona

bly trustworthy

inform at ion suffic ie nt to le a d a pe rson of
re a s ona ble c a ution to be lie ve " tha

t Pla intiff ha d viola

te d Ore gon R e vise d Statute
se c t ion 811.700 by ba c king into som e one e lse ’ s ve hic le and le aving thesc e ne without providing he

r nam e and insura

nc e inform ation. John v. C ity of El M onte , 515 F.3d 936, 940 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). W e c onside r
a ll the c irc um sta

nc e s known to the

offic e rs at

the tim e of the arre st. Ve la z que z v. C ity of Long B e a c h, 793 F.3d 1010, 1018 (9th C ir. 2015). 1 Pla intiff’ s lic e nse pla te
m atc h e d the num be r re porte d to the911 dispa tc h e r, she re se m

ble d the pe rson se e n in se c urity foota g e who re p orte dly ha d ba c ke d into som e one e lse ’ s c ar, an d he r c a r ha d da m a ge on its re ar bum

pe r c onsiste n t with ha

ving ba c ke d into a

nothe r ve hic le
. C e rta inty is not re quire d to e sta

blish proba

ble c a use . Unite d State s v. Lope z , 482 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th C ir. 2007). Ac c o rdingly , a re a sona ble jury c ould not find that the De fe nda

nt Offic e rs la c k e d proba

ble c a use , a nd sum m ary judgm e nt on Pla i ntiff’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im of a n unc onstitutiona

l a rre st wa s prope r.

1 W e the re fore de c l ine to c onside r e nha nc e d se c urity

foota ge to whic h the De fe nda nt Offic e rs la c ke d a c c e ss a t the tim e of the arre st. Se e John, 515 F.3d a t 940 (e xpla ining tha

t the c o urt m ay

not c onside r fa c ts tha

t be c am e known only

a fte r the a rre st). 22. Sum m a ry judgm e nt a lso wa s prope r with re spe c t to Pla intiff’ s sta te -law
c la im s. (a ) Unde r Ore gon la

w, proba b le c a use to a rre st re q uire s tha t a n offic e r subje c tive ly

be lie ve tha

t the arre ste d pe rson ha s c om m itte d a c rim e justify ing he r
se iz ure an d tha

t the offic e r’ s be lie f be obje c tive ly re a sona ble in the c i rc um sta

nc e s . Stat e v. M ille r, 191 P.3d 651, 657 (Or. 2008). The De fe nda nt Offic e rs ha d proba b le c a use unde r stat e la

w to a rre st Pla intiff for ha

ving viola

t e d se c tion 811.700. Proba

ble c a use to a rre st ba rs a c la i m for fa lse arre st unde r Ore gon la w. M ille r v. C olum

bia C ounty , 385 P.3d 1214, 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). (b) W e a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t a pla i ntiff m ay

pursue a sta

te -law
c la im of ne glige nc e pre m ise d on the sa m e fa c ts tha

t unde rlie a Fourth Am e ndm e nt
c la im of a rre st without proba

ble c a use . 2 None the le ss Pla intiff’ s ne glige nc e c la im fa ils, be c a use the De fe n da

nt Offic e rs be have d

re a sona bly by arre sting Pla intiff with proba

ble c a use . Not e ve ry

m ista ke is a c tiona

ble
. Ore gon la

w did not re quire the o ffic e rs to " e lim inate a ll possible la wful e xpla

n ations for c onduc t" tha

t
a ppe are d to viola

te the la w. Id. a t 1222 (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

2 W e the re fore DE NY De fe nda nts’ m otion to c e rtify

a que stion to the Ore gon Supre m e C o urt. 3