This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. The constitutional standard is: “(1) Defendants continued their investigation of [the plaintiff] despite the fact that they knew or should have known that [she] was innocent; or (2) Defendants used investigative techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew or should have known that those techniques would yield false information.” Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The district court dubbed that standard "deliberate indifference” in order to distinguish it from mere negligence.

. See Gausvik v. Perez, 345 F.3d 813, 814-16 (9th Cir. 2003); Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, 345 F.3d 802, 805-06 (9th Cir. 2003); Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1073-74; Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1085-90 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting).

. Green also argues that in ruling on the summary judgment motions, the district court should not have declined to consider the opinion of her expert, Robert D. Keppel. However, Keppel, basically, rendered his opinion on whether the legal standard was met, and, beyond that, essentially deemed the standard to be one of negligence. The district court did not err. Moreover, in light of our decision on the above issues and the dismissal by Green of her other causes of action, any claim that Keppel's opinions should have been admissible at trial is moot.