Rejecting claims of constitutional violations by dispersing protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and “flash-bang grenades”; dispersal of protestors by airborne transmission of chemical irritants and auditory and visual irritants does not constitute a seizure under Fourth Amendment because intent to disperse does not constitute an intent to restrain under Torres v. Madrid; “restrain” requires objective aim to detain or confine, even if only temporarily; asking someone to leave a place is not a seizure, but grabbing them to throw them out would be; rejecting Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim, court holds intent to harm is necessary to shock the conscience unless there is time to deliberate, in which event deliberate indifference is enough, but even when there is literally time to deliberate, if circumstances force officers to “act quickly” then intent to harm is required; individual excessive force claims rejected on qualified immunity grounds.
Citation
Actionable Conduct Edition