Week of March 28, 2023

In case by NLG legal observers, court holds that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, but there is a strong dissent by Judge Benton who finds right was clearly established; court rejects other theories that police who tear gassed NLG legal observers and others on private property did so in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights; court finds that wearing green hats that said “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer” did not clearly convey a pro-protest message; third plaintiff who followed polic

Where officer had no reason to believe subject was armed, subject was critically injured and likely could not move, handcuffing subject was an arrest without probable cause under clearly established law.

Use of firearms to detain subject of Terry stop was reasonable and did not escalate detention into arrest where officers reasonably suspected they were confronting a fugitive triple-murderer.

Mother drowned children after police separated her and children from father; court rejects “legal requirement” exception to rule against liability for failure to act; rejects special-relationship exception on facts of case because officials did not have custody of the children, rejecting “de facto” custody argument; permits state created danger claim against officials who left children in situation more dangerous than one in which they found them; physical separation of father from children did not violate his right to familial association.

Data showing Black drivers are stopped at higher rate and that higher rate of searches of Black drivers is unwarranted shows disparate impact, not discriminatory purpose and is insufficient to plead equal protection claim.

Where doctor was aware that prisoner who died from cervical cancer had been diagnosed with chlamydia, had been suffering hip and groin pain for weeks, had been complaining of ongoing and abnormal vaginal discharge and bleeding for weeks, had mild leukocytosis, had heavy E. Coli growth, and that symptoms were getting more severe, not less, provision of modicum of care would not defeat claim for deliberate indifference of provider or on gatekeeper theory.

Failure to provide medical care to subject who had been shot several times, was bleeding, moaning, groaning from pain, and in obvious and critical need of emergency medical care violated clearly established rights.

Where subject had access to two guns not far beyond his immediate reach, had
proven his willingness to use guns against officers, and was acting erratically and
displaying frighteningly unstable frame of mind, officer could reasonably interpret a
sudden lurch as commencement of attack and fire at subject.

Where reasonable officer would have known driver was unarmed, driver never reached out of officer’s sight, officer had taser he failed to use, officer never warned driver he would shoot, shooting driver would be excessive force and officer not entitled to qualified immunity.