Wins

After a news report that two people were suing the City of Pasadena and its police chief based on an allegedly unconstitutional search of their home, the police chief issued a press release regarding the claim.  The press release included links to bodycam footage of the search and to a recording of the 911 call that triggered the search.  The chief explained that he was making the recordings available in the interest of transparency, so the public could judge for itself whether the police had acted appropriately.  The press release didn’t reveal the residents’ names or address, but their address was audible and visible in the linked recordings.

The residents sued the City and the chief based on the press release.  They alleged that it was dangerous for their address to be publicized because they are federal criminal investigators, and that the chief had publicized their address in retaliation for the lawsuit they had filed challenging the search.  Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California’s Bane Act.

The district court denied qualified immunity for the chief on the section 1983 claim, and denied the defense motion to strike plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim under the anti-SLAPP statute.  The Ninth Circuit reversed.  Adopting arguments developed by GMSR, it held that plaintiffs didn’t show that the chief violated a clearly established right as would be required to defeat qualified immunity.  The court also held that plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim failed because the press release didn’t threaten violence, as required to maintain a Bane Act claim based on “speech alone.”

Click here to read the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum disposition:  Anderson v. Perez (9th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024, No. 23-2790) 2024 WL 4471306.