Week of January 5, 2022

Plaintiff was shot by officer as he attempted to drive away from crash at conclusion of high-speed chase, plaintiff eluded officers and checked himself into a hospital; plaintiff was “seized” although he avoided capture; factual issues existed about whether shooting officer or others were in danger; court denies qualified immunity, concluding “a suspect fleeing in a vehicle, who has not otherwise displayed threatening behavior, has the constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force when it is no longer reasonable for an officer to believe his or others’ lives are in immediate

Officers applied bodyweight prone restraint which killed mentally ill man who had called police for assistance; department general orders required officers responding to a crisis intervention training situation or “excited delirium” to place the subject upright or on their side after bringing them under control; officer held decedent in prone restraint with his knee pressing on his back for fourteen minutes; court reverses district court’s summary judgment for officers, finding factual disputes about reasonableness of force and whether the force constituted deadly force, noting that taking

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that introduction of fabricated evidence violates fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that withholding of exculpatory evidence violates a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and clearly established that a plaintiff need not show that the officer acted in bad faith when material exculpatory evidence was lost or destroyed and the evidence’s exculpatory value was apparent.

Officers did not turn Terry stop into arrest by pointing their guns at subjects and handcuffing them; officers were investigating a disturbance involving a handgun and although they did not observe subjects with a gun, they lacked personal knowledge to rule them out as suspects, nor did they point guns at them for an unreasonably long time; with respect to a later arrest of one of the subjects, court concludes facts were disputed, but if plaintiff was walking away from officers when he shouted an obscenity, officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that individuals have a right to be free from malicious prosecution by a defendant who has made, influenced, or participated in the decision to prosecute the plaintiff by, for example, knowingly or recklessly making false statements that are material to the prosecution either in reports or in affidavits filed to secure warrants.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that there is a right to be free from identification procedures so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that they violate due process of law.