NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CHRISTOPHER FOSTER; et al., No. 15-35056
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00411-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SPOKANE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 19, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Foster, Shannell Haddon, Lawrence Johnson, and Dina Tellez
(“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment grant to Spokane County,
David Skogen and Craig Chamberlain (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs argue summary
judgment was improper as to their unlawful arrest and false arrest claims against
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Defendant Skogen, and as to their defamation claim against Defendant Chamberlain.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. At the time of Plaintiffs’ arrests, the facts and circumstances within
Defendant Skogen’s knowledge were sufficient for a reasonable officer to believe that
there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs on suspicion of trafficking. See
Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Accordingly, Defendant Skogen was entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ 42
U.S.C. § 1983 unlawful arrest claim. See id.
2. The district court also properly granted summary judgment to Defendant
Skogen on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claim. Lydia’s tip satisfied both Aguilar-
Spinelli prongs. See State v. Conner, 791 P.2d 261, 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
Because Defendant Skogen was “aware of facts or circumstances, based on reasonably
trustworthy information, sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to believe a crime
ha[d] been committed,” State v. Gaddy, 93 P.3d 872, 875 (Wash. 2004) (en banc)
(emphasis omitted), probable cause existed for Plaintiffs’ arrests, and Defendant
Skogen was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claim, see
Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 852 P.2d 295, 301 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also
Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
3. In addition, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to
Defendant Chamberlain on Plaintiffs’ defamation claim. Plaintiffs did not present
sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute that Defendant Chamberlain
abused the qualified privilege that protects a police officer’s statements to the press
in the course of a criminal investigation. See Stansfield v. Douglas County, 26 P.3d
935, 942-43 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3