Opinion ID: 4204464
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Viewing the Evidence in the Light Most

Text: Favorable to Sharp III, the Deputies Continued Sharp III’s Arrest in Retaliation for Exercising His First Amendment Rights The Majority recites these facts related to Sharp III’s seizure after the deputies realized he was not the subject of the arrest warrant: At this time, the deputies did not release Sharp III. Instead, they kept him handcuffed and locked in the patrol car. Sharp III was furious and adamantly protested his detention, loudly swearing at the deputies and threatening to sue them. In response, Deputy Anderson told Sharp III: “If you weren’t being so argumentative, I’d probably just put you on the curb.” Based on Deputy Anderson’s statement, the Majority concedes that the deputies failed to release Sharp III in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. In contrast, when analyzing whether the continued detention violated Sharp III’s Fourth Amendment rights, the Majority inexplicably ignores Deputy Anderson’s statement. Instead, the Majority improperly concludes that the deputies may have reasonably but mistakenly believed that the exception in Summers applied to arrest warrants. However, the Majority’s conclusion is possible only if we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the deputies. Thus, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Sharp III, the SHARP V. COUNTY OF ORANGE 47 deputies continued Sharp III’s arrest because he exercised his First Amendment rights.