FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMUNDO CHAVEZ, No. 09-16403
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04015 CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 10, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: COWEN **, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Raymundo Chavez appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Defendants-Appellees City of Oakland, Oakland Police Officers
Kevin Reynolds and Cesar Garcia, and Chief of Police Wayne Tucker.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge
for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s
grant of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity de novo.
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007). The court
“must view the evidence in the light most favorable to [Chavez] to determine if
there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the defendants were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d
406, 427 (9th Cir. 2010).
Chavez’s First Amendment claims fail because he has not demonstrated that
he was deprived of any federal constitutional right. Chavez fails to present any
evidence that members of the public generally had a right to park on Interstate 880
and exit their cars to take pictures of the accident scene. “The First Amendment
does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information
not available to the public generally.” See Cal. First Amendment Coalition v.
Calderon, 150 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408
U.S. 665, 684, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972)). “Newsmen have no
constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general
public is excluded . . . .” Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1, 10-11, 98 S. Ct. 2588, 57
L.Ed. 2d 553 (1978) (quoting Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 684). Furthermore, neither
California Penal Code section 409.5 nor an Oakland police “practice of allowing
2
reporters to stop and park at accident scenes on interstate highways” provides
Chavez with a federal right as a member of the press to park his car on the freeway
to gather news at this accident scene.
As to Chavez’s Fourth Amendment claims, undisputed facts show that an
Oakland Fire Department vehicle had to merge around Chavez’s parked car to
reach the accident scene. Officer Reynolds therefore had probable cause to believe
that Chavez’s car was impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in
violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 22400(a). Undisputed facts also show that Chavez
refused to comply with two directives from Officer Reynolds to return to his car
and leave the scene of the accident. Officer Reynolds therefore had probable cause
to believe that Chavez had willfully refused to comply with a lawful order in
violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 2800(a). Moreover, even in the absence of probable
cause, Officer Reynolds’ belief that there was probable cause to cite and arrest
Chavez for the two above violations of the Vehicle Code was reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3