United States Ninth Circuit

A right exists to be free of police action for which retaliation is a but-for cause even if probable cause exists for that action. In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case, denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for defendant-officer on a claim that defendant seized plaintiff's still camera in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights is reversed where, although plaintiff stated a valid retaliation claim, the right assertedly violated was not clearly established. Summary judgment for defendant on an illegal search and seizure claim is affirmed, while appeals on another claim and various rulings are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/09/2006
• Decided 11/20/2006
• Published 11/20/2006

Judges

• T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge., Before BRUNETTI, T.G. NELSON, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Montomery W. Cobb, Cobb & Bosse, LLP, Portland, OR, for plaintiff-appellant-appellee Daniel Skoog., Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, OR, for defendant-appellant-appellee Herbert Royster., Edward S. McGlone, Assistant County Counsel, Clackamas County, Oregon City, OR, for defendant-appellee County of Clackamas.