Case Explained: DIAMOND V. WETHERBEE, 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 Officer William Wetherbee and Sergeant Sean Collinson, holding that the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident to put these officers on notice that their use of less-lethal force against Douglas Diamond violated the Fourth Amendment. Applying a de novo standard of review limited by the interlocutory nature of the appeal, the court determined it could not resolve factual disputes regarding excessive force but found no precedent placing the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate under the specific circumstances: Diamond was armed with a loaded handgun in his pocket, had refused repeated commands to show his hands, and posed an immediate threat that justified the deployment of beanbag rounds and a Taser. Additionally, the court held that Sergeant Collinson could not be liable as an “integral participant” for Officer Boyes’s alleged use of force because there was no evidence Collinson agreed to a common plan involving unconstitutional conduct or acquiesced in such conduct, noting that deploying lethal cover during a dangerous encounter with an armed, suicidal individual was reasonable. The case is remanded to the district court to proceed on the excessive force, failure to train, and state law claims against the City of Sandy, County of Clackamas, and Officer Boyes, while costs are awarded to Wetherbee and Collinson. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.