UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PUENTE, an Arizona nonprofit No. 22-15344 corporation; PODER IN ACTION, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; IRA YEDLIN; JANET TRAVIS; D.C. No. 2:18-cv- CYNTHIA GUILLEN; JACINTA 02778-JJT GONZALEZ GOODMAN, individually and as class representatives, OPINION Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation; MICHAEL SULLIVAN, in his official capacity; JERI L. WILLIAMS; GLENN NEVILLE; JOHN STICCA; LANE WHITE; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Does 1-20, Defendants, and BENJAMIN MOORE, individually and in their official capacities; DOUGLAS MCBRIDE; ROBERT SCOTT; CHRISTOPHER TURIANO; JEFFREY HOWELL; GEORGE HERR, 2 PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX

Defendants-Appellants.

PUENTE, an Arizona nonprofit No. 22-15661 corporation; IRA YEDLIN; JANET TRAVIS; CYNTHIA GUILLEN; D.C. No. 2:18-cv- JACINTA GONZALEZ GOODMAN, 02778-JJT individually and as class representatives; PODER IN ACTION, an Arizona nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation; MICHAEL SULLIVAN, in his official capacity; BENJAMIN MOORE, individually and in his official capacity; JERI L. WILLIAMS; DOUGLAS MCBRIDE; ROBERT SCOTT; CHRISTOPHER TURIANO; JEFFREY HOWELL; GEORGE HERR, Defendants-Appellees, and GLENN NEVILLE; JOHN STICCA; LANE WHITE; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Does 1-20, Defendants. PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX 3

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2023 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed December 19, 2024

Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Collins

SUMMARY *

Civil Rights/Excessive Force

The panel reversed the district court's partial denial of summary judgment to Phoenix Police Department (“PPD”) defendants and affirmed the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment to PPD defendants in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by two organizations and four individuals asserting a variety of claims arising from actions that defendants took against political demonstrators protesting outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX

Amendments by dispersing protesters through the use of tear gas, other chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades. After certifying two distinct classes, the district court ultimately granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive- force claims asserted by three of the individual plaintiffs against certain PPD officers. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants on the class claims for excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. There was no “seizure” of the class members within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the record showed that defendants’ use of airborne and auditory irritants was not objectively aimed at restraining the class members, even temporarily. Because the class’s excessive-force claims arose outside the context of a seizure, the panel evaluated those claims under the Fourteenth Amendment shocks-the- conscience test rather than the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Given the quickly escal