Still v. City of Longview – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, ruling that the city's speech restrictions were viewpoint neutral and the police officer's actions were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Standard: Objective reasonableness
Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces that local governments may enforce reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules in public forums and that minimal physical force used to remove disruptive individuals from such meetings does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in a case involving First Amendment and Fourth Amendment claims against a city. The court held that the city's speech restrictions were viewpoint neutral and that the police officer's use of force was objectively reasonable.

Background

Jason Still appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Longview on his state law claim and Monell claims alleging First Amendment and Fourth Amendment violations. Still alleged that city officials violated his rights by censoring his speech at public meetings and that a police officer used unlawful force when he was asked to leave a meeting.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed the summary judgment. First, the court held that the Washington criminal statute cited by Still does not authorize a private right of action, barring the state law claim. Second, regarding the First Amendment, the court found that city council meetings are limited public forums where the city may regulate content as long as regulations are viewpoint neutral. The restrictions placed on Still were reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Third, the court analyzed the force claim under the Fourth Amendment rather than substantive due process. The court found that the police officer had probable cause to arrest Still for disorderly conduct and obstructing a law enforcement officer. The officer’s use of force, which involved grabbing Still’s wrist and placing a hand on his elbow, was objectively reasonable.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces that local governments may enforce reasonable, viewpoint-neutral rules in public forums and that minimal physical force used to remove disruptive individuals from such meetings does not violate the Fourth Amendment.