Officers responding to domestic violence call involving multiple gunshots were sent to wrong address, innocent decedent came out of his home with pistol because he thought he heard a prowler, officer shot decedent without warning when he began to raise his weapon; court awards qualified immunity because of lack of previous case on point, noting that warning is not always required before firing.
Scott v. Harris does not require court, on the basis of largely consistent story from police and other bystanders that justified police shooting, to disregard deposition testimony of bystander that he initially lied to police during investigation and truth was that officers brutally beat decedent even though he did not resist, that they could easily have handcuffed him, and deadly force was not required; factual issues were for a jury and qualified immunity should have been denied with respect to use of deadly force.
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for escorting patron at country fair off premises because he was spewing profanities about police and wearing shirt stating, “Fuck the Police,” which was protected speech; factual issues precluded summary judgment on claim that plaintiff’s arrest for disorderly conduct was in retaliation for protected speech.
Initial use of force, striking arrestee in back of head with flashlight or similar blunt object, when arrestee was dangerously carrying his kidnapped daughter down middle of road as cars sped by, did not violate clearly established rights; disputed facts precluded summary judgment on whether officer’s conduct during five-minute struggle with arrestee, including multiple uses of stun gun, repeatedly hitting arrestee with flashlight and baton, and kneeing him in head and face, was reasonable.
Reversing district court grant of qualified immunity; two strip searches by principal and counselor of minor student T.R. based on finding marijuana stems and seeds in student’s backpack and report by other students that T.R. lit a joint in class; court holds factfinder could find search violated student’s clearly established rights.
Plaintiff was arrested on a warrant based on tip from a CI and photographic identification by co-perpetrator who had already confessed; when co-perpetrator saw plaintiff in person he said she was not the perpetrator; failure to release plaintiff promptly or to return to magistrate to inform him of non-identification did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights; probable cause persisted throughout detention, officer was entitled to rely on facially valid and lawfully obtained warrant, and officer did not take affirmative action to continue the prosecution; in revisionist opinion by Ju