Week of December 21, 2021

Critical question in cases involving use of deadly force during vehicular flight is “whether the officer has ‘reason to believe that the [fleeing] car presents an imminent danger’ to ‘officers and members of the public in the area.’”; deadly force is justified against “a driver who objectively appears ready to drive into an officer or bystander with his car; deadly force is generally not justified “once the car moves away, leaving the officer and bystanders in a position of safety[,]” but an officer may “continue to fire at a fleeing vehicle even when no one is in the vehicle’s direct path

Jury could find that when officer entered holding cell and struck prisoner who had been complaining about his arrest, that prisoner’s arrest had been effected, he was fully secured, not moving, resisting, or posing any threat, not attempting to flee, and there was no need to use force against him, hence force would be excessive and officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Sergeant shift supervisor in prison was killed by prisoner who threw boiling liquid at her and beat her with fire extinguisher; plaintiff alleged defendant officials put decedent in a dangerous situation with in adequate staffing based on lack of trained and experienced officers to support her, and they were aware of, or should have been aware of, the imminent threat posed by the dangerous prisoner; court finds allegations insufficient to establish state-created danger, noting 6th Circuit has found state-created danger in only one case.

Law was not clearly established that officer’s enforcement of protest zones violated First Amendment, officer entitled to qualified immunity for preventing journalist from engaging with counterprotester.

Officer had sex and impregnated pretrial detainee; court analyzes case as an excessive force claim, applies objective test per Kingsley, finds genuine dispute of material fact about whether encounters were consensual; there is a rebuttable presumption that sexual conduct between officials and incarcerated persons is not consensual, defendant may rebut presumption by showing that conduct involved no coercive factors, court notes that scaring prisoner, offering to speak favorably to prosecutor, and offering privileges and favors, if proven, would amount to coercion.