Opinion ID: 4204464
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuing Sharp III’s Seizure for Exercising

Text: His First Amendment Rights was an Obvious Violation of Sharp III’s Fourth Amendment Rights Holding a suspect in custody for exercising his First Amendment rights is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, case law in our circuit compels this conclusion. In Duran v. City of Douglas, Ariz., an officer detained the defendant for “making obscene gestures toward [the officer] and yelling profanities.” Duran v. City of Douglas, Ariz., 904 F.2d 1372, 1377 (9th Cir. 1990). The Duran court held that, “while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.” Id. at 1378. Consequently, the court held that detaining an individual without probable cause for exercising First Amendment rights was an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. The import of Duran is clear: the deputies committed a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment when they kept Sharp III in custody for exercising his First Amendment rights. 2 As a result, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis does not provide immunity to the deputies. 2 Duran provided sufficient notice to the deputies that their conduct was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, in addition to being an “obvious” violation, the violation was clearly established by a factually analogous case. 48 SHARP V. COUNTY OF ORANGE