Opinion
Nos. 06-35734, 06-35735.
Argued and Submitted March 2, 2009 Portland, Oregon.
March 20, 2009.
D.C. No. CV-04-01665-JE.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon John Jelderks, Magistrate Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-04-01666-JE.
Before: GRABER, FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sean Sullivan and Robert Freece appeal from summary judgments dismissing their claims of civil rights violations and false imprisonment against the City of Wilsonville and two city employees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
The city employees seized Sullivan and Freece by closing the gate at the exit of the park. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200 (2002). The seizure was not per se unreasonable, so we apply a balancing test. See United States v. Faulkner, 450 F.3d 466, 471 (9th Cir. 2006). Balancing the governmental and private interests, the seizure was unreasonable, because "using . . . continued detention to coerce" activity is more intrusive than necessary. See Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115, 1121-22, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003). However, given the brevity of the seizure by the park officials (a total of about 20 minutes as compared to the seizure of the Ganwich plaintiffs for almost five hours) and the relatively low level of coercion involved (picking up trash compared to submitting to police interrogation in Ganwich), it would not have been clear to a reasonable park official in the city employees' position that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment. See Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 1996). For this reason, and because the seizure was not the kind of blockage that is subject to Oregon's legal restrictions on roadblocks absent express authority, the employees are immune under the Oregon Tort Claims Act. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.265(3)(f).
AFFIRMED.