Donald Dunlap v. Anchorage Police Department, 712 F. App'x 646

Dunlap was arrested by APD Officer Shaun Henry after Henry observed multiple weapons in Dunlap’s vehicle and Dunlap did not notify Henry of concealed weapons as required by Alaska/Anchorage law.
Dunlap sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming an unlawful arrest; Henry, APD, and the Municipality of Anchorage moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment for Henry and the municipal defendants; Dunlap appealed.
The Ninth Circuit assumed, for purposes of appeal, that Henry lacked probable cause but analyzed qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated might not have been clearly established.
The court found state and local concealed-weapons law and controlling precedent ambiguous about whether weapons “on the person” includes weapons within easy reach in a vehicle, so a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause.
Dunlap did not raise arguments on appeal against APD, MOA, or his state-law claims; those claims were deemed waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Henry’s arrest violated the Fourth Amendment (probable cause)	Dunlap: No probable cause because weapons were not “on the person” under controlling law	Henry: Officer reasonably believed arrest lawful under Anchorage/Alaska concealed-weapons rules	Court assumed a constitutional violation for argument but ruled qualified immunity nonetheless because the law was not clearly established
Whether Henry is entitled to qualified immunity	Dunlap: Right was clearly established; officer should have known arrest unlawful	Henry: Law ambiguous; reasonable officers could disagree about probable cause	Held for Henry: right not clearly established, so qualified immunity applies
Whether De Nardo controls definition of “on the person”	Dunlap: De Nardo makes weapons within reach not “on the person”	Henry: De Nardo declined to define outer boundaries; it does not resolve this factual context	Court: De Nardo does not place question beyond debate; it is not directly dispositive
Whether municipal and state-law claims survive on appeal	Dunlap: (not argued on appeal)	Defendants: waived if not briefed	Held: Claims against APD, MOA and state-law claims waived for failure to brief on appeal

Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (addressed reasonable-mistake doctrine in Fourth Amendment context)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity framework)
Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (probable-cause/qualified-immunity standard in unlawful-arrest claims)
Picray v. Sealock, 138 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1998) (officers entitled to qualified immunity where reasonable officers could conclude state law was violated)
De Nardo v. State, 819 P.2d 903 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991) (discussed but declined to define outer boundaries of “on the person”)
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity where ambiguous state law terms left officers reasonable room to disagree)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clarity required for constitutional rights to be clearly established)
Burrell v. McIlroy, 464 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006) (appellate review may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984) (plaintiff’s burden to show rights clearly established to overcome qualified immunity)