Case Explained: ALTIERO, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SPOKANE, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 Docket: 2:22-cv-00211-RLP The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Kelly Altiero’s federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and her state law claims, holding that the animal protection officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court applied the two-step qualified immunity inquiry, determining whether the facts demonstrated a constitutional violation and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. Regarding Altiero’s unlawful search claim, the court affirmed summary judgment because she failed to cite any precedent clearly establishing her constitutional right in this context, noting that the presence of “No Trespassing” signs does not negate an implied license for a knock-and-talk under existing Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority. On her procedural due process claims, the court held that Washington Revised Code § 16.52.085(2) grants officers discretion to authorize veterinary examinations before seizure, and Altiero failed to identify clearly established law supporting her claim. Similarly, regarding the failure to provide notice prior to the euthanization of a horse named “Melvin,” the court exercised its discretion to address only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, concluding that no clearly established precedent supported her right to such notice. The court declined to consider Altiero’s arguments concerning unlawful seizure, municipal liability for negligent training and supervision, and other state law claims because she failed to present any argument challenging the district court’s summary judgment on those specific issues. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.