Case Explained: DIAMOND V. COLLINSON, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-22 Docket: 3:22-cv-00346-SI The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Officers William Wetherbee and Sergeant Sean Collinson, holding that the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident to put them on notice that using less-lethal force against an irrational, suicidal individual armed with a loaded handgun in his pocket violated the Fourth Amendment. Applying the two-prong qualified immunity test under *District of Columbia v. Wesby*, the court determined that while it could not review factual disputes regarding excessive force on interlocutory appeal, no existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate given the specific circumstances of Diamond’s refusal to comply with commands to show his hands from a pocket containing a firearm. Additionally, the court held that Sergeant Collinson was not liable as an “integral participant” for Officer Boyes’s conduct because there was no evidence he agreed to a common plan involving unconstitutional force or acquiesced in such conduct, noting that deploying less-lethal options with lethal cover in response to a dangerous, armed, and erratic suspect was reasonable. Consequently, the case will proceed in district court on the excessive force, failure to train, and state law claims against the City of Sandy, Clackamas County, and Officer Boyes, while the qualified immunity claims against Wetherbee and Collinson are dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.