UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HALEY OLSON, No. 23-35365

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01342-IM v. COUNTY OF GRANT, a government OPINION entity; GLENN PALMER; JIM CARPENTER,

Defendants-Appellees, and ABIGAIL MOBLEY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2024 Seattle, Washington

Filed February 10, 2025 2 OLSON V. COUNTY OF GRANT

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Richard R. Clifton, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge McKeown; Concurrence by Judge Bress

SUMMARY *

Fourth Amendment/Qualified Immunity

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for law enforcement officials based on qualified immunity and lack of supervisory liability in Haley Olson’s action alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from the extraction of the contents of her phone without a warrant. Olson was arrested in Idaho for marijuana possession and signed a form giving Idaho police consent to search her phone, who then created an “extraction,” or copy, of her phone contents. Defendant Glenn Palmer, then-Sheriff of Grant County, Oregon, heard about the Idaho arrest and, curious about whether Olson was romantically involved with Grant County Deputy Tyler Smith asked defendant Jim Carpenter, then-Grant County Attorney and County Prosecutor, to request the phone extraction from the Idaho prosecutor in Olson’s case. Carpenter requested and obtained the extraction and reviewed the contents before allegedly deleting the data. However, Olson subsequently heard gossip around town about the contents of her phone, * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. OLSON V. COUNTY OF GRANT 3

including nude photos, all seemingly originating from the sheriff’s office. She sued Sheriff Palmer, County Prosecutor Carpenter, and Grant County, alleging, among other things, a Fourth Amendment violation. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Sheriff Palmer for lack of supervisory liability because there was no evidence that Palmer reviewed the extraction or had any supervisory authority over Carpenter. His request that Carpenter procure and review Olson’s cell phone data failed to establish supervisory control. The panel declined to impose supervisory liability for a constitutional violation where, at best, there was a cooperative relationship between colleagues. The panel next agreed with the district court that Carpenter was entitled to qualified immunity because Olson’s right to be free from Carpenter’s search was not clearly established at the time. The panel determined, however, that developing constitutional precedent in this area would be helpful, and, therefore, held that Carpenter’s search infringed on Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights. This case involved a law enforcement agency accessing highly sensitive cell phone data from another jurisdiction in the absence of a warrant, consent, or even any investigation or suspicion of criminal activity on the part of a suspect. Olson was arrested in Idaho for possession of marijuana, which is not illegal in Oregon, and there was no reason for Palmer or Carpenter to suspect that Deputy Smith had taken part in criminal activity. Olson’s consent in Idaho did not extend to a search by a different law enforcement agency, in another state, and the search did not fall into any exception to the warrant requirement. 4 OLSON V. COUNTY OF GRANT

Concurring in part and concurring