Claim by plaintiff convicted of misdemeanor harassment alleging violation of Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, to confront witnesses, to fair trial, and conspiracy to violate civil rights by pursuing criminal case without probable cause, did not accrue until conviction was vacated upon motion, even though motion was not filed until nine years after conviction; both doctrine of malicious prosecution and Heck rule required termination of criminal case in plaintiff’s favor.
During welfare check, deputy made explicit sexual remarks and demands, commanded plaintiff to expose her breasts, vagina, and clitoris and then masturbated to ejaculation in front of her; remarkably, the court finds that the plaintiff was not “seized” and thus had no claim under the Fourth Amendment; the court does find that plaintiff’s right to bodily integrity was violated in violation of substantive due process and finds, contrary to the district court (Judge Michael Joseph Truncale’s conscience was not shocked), that the defendant’s conduct shocked the conscience even though
Refusing to provide identification to a police officer is not probable cause for arrest for obstruction under Illinois law; Hiibel v. Sixth District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) merely held that a state may pass a law that makes refusing to provide identification to police a crime, but Illinois law does not do that; but police here did have probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for trespass, defeating § 1983 claim for false arrest.
St.
Vacating and amending J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, 17 F.4th 11247 (9th Cir. 2021), previously reported in Actionable Conduct on Nov. 23, 2021.
Clearly established that police may not use force against high school student not committing crime, no threat to others, and not resisting or attempting to flee.