Cited by

In our discretion, we do not remand to allow Patterson to plead qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a question of law that we review de novo, ¶ 11 (2011), and we can resolve it on the record before us. See Graves v. City of Coeur D’Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 845, n.23 (9th Cir. 2003).

But this statute applies to an original arrest, and “[a]ll arrests, either with or without a warrant, 8 JOHNSON v. HON HARTSELL/STATE Opinion of the Court ‘must be reasonable under the circumstances.’” ¶ 17 (2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 736 (2011)).

¶ 11 3 HARIANTO, et al. v. STATE, et al. Decision of the Court (2011).

¶19 We review the court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” ¶ 11 (2011).

We review de novo the court’s grant of summary judgment, ¶ 11 (2011), as well as the interpretation of statutes and ordinances, City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2001).

¶ 11 (2011) (citation omitted).

¶ 11, (“The de novo standard also applies to our review of the [party’s] entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”).

¶ 11, (citation omitted).