Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)

Citation: Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)
Parent Document: Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2023-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9429207/greg-moore-v-sean-garnand/ ↗

Full Text

1,579 chars

Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012). But see Mendia v.
Garcia, No. 10-CV-03910-MEJ, 2016 WL 2654327, at *8
(N.D. Cal. May 10, 2016) (recognizing that plaintiff had a
First Amendment right not to speak to ICE agents).
   Because it was not clearly established that Mr. Moore
had a First Amendment right to remain silent when
questioned by Defendants, Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims based on
Mr. Moore’s silence. See Ballentine, 28 F.4th at 61.
B. Retaliation Based on Plaintiffs’ Lawsuits and
   Requests for Information
    Plaintiffs filed suits against Officer Garnand and the City
of Tucson and requested disclosures of public records.10
Plaintiffs claim that in retaliation for exercising those First
Amendment rights, Defendants conducted a criminal
investigation against Plaintiffs without any reasonable
suspicion—which included interviewing two witnesses—
and attempted to induce the IRS into opening a criminal
investigation against Plaintiffs. In short, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights by
pursuing a retaliatory investigation.
    Again, however, Plaintiffs identify no caselaw that
clearly established that a retaliatory investigation per se
violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has not
decided the issue. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262
n.9 (2006) (“Whether the expense or other adverse
consequences of a retaliatory investigation would ever
justify recognizing such an investigation as a distinct
constitutional violation is not before us.”); see also Rehberg

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text