Eddie Ford v. City of Yakima
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ford was detained and then booked for a Yakima noise-ordinance violation after a late-night traffic stop.
- He publicly criticized the stop as racially motivated; Urlacher warned him to stop talking and to cooperate.
- Wentz joined, and Ford was jailed following a booking decision based in part on Ford’s post‑detention statements.
- Ford was prosecuted for the noise violation; the municipal court acquitted him.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, holding there was probable cause and no but-for causation.
- Ford appealed alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim and challenging the district court’s qualified-immunity ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford State a First Amendment retaliation claim against the officers. | Ford claims speech-based retaliation violated his rights. | Urlacher/Wentz argued probable cause and non-retaliatory booking. | Yes; a jury could find retaliation despite probable cause. |
| Whether the right at issue was clearly established in 2007. | The right to be free from retaliatory action for speech was clearly established. | No clearly established rule extended to post-detention booking based on speech. | No; the right was clearly established by prior cases (Duran, Skoog) for retaliatory actions, including booking. |
| Whether qualified immunity shielded the officers from liability. | Ford's rights were violated; immunity should not apply. | Officers acted under color of law with probable cause. | No qualified immunity; officers not entitled to immunity. |
| Whether causation was met for but-for retaliation. | Ford alleges but-for causation for booking due to speech. | Probable cause and Washington CrRLJ framework negate but-for causation. | A reasonable jury could find but-for causation; reversed on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (protects verbal criticism of police absent clear danger)
- Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) (retaliatory action unlawful when based on protected speech)
- Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2006) (right to be free from retaliatory action even with probable cause; but-for causation required later)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (probable cause can weigh against finding retaliation; but-for standard relevant to causation)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliation claims require but-for causation; not all motive proves constitutional violation)