Week of August 10, 2023

Clearly established that officer could not fire stun gun at non-threatening, compliant subject.

Expert testimony on the absence of probable cause was a legal opinion and thus inadmissible.

Clearly established that handcuffing unarmed and seriously injured suspect without probable cause violated Fourth Amendment.

Deputy's use of force when seizing motorist for minor traffic violations was excessive even though motorist was openly carrying firearm; threat posed by armed suspect is assessed using set of nonexclusive factors, including: (1) whether officers ordered suspect to drop his weapon, and suspect's compliance with commands; (2) whether hostile motions were made with weapon towards officers; (3) distance separating officers and suspect; and (4) suspect's manifest intentions.

Where officer shot subject several times and watched him crash into a tree, and officer radioed for police backup for himself, it would violate clearly established law for officer to stand by for six minutes without performing medical care or call for medical backup.

Clearly established that use of deadly force against person who officer knew was not dangerous was constitutional violation.

Officer did not seize suspect, despite fact that officer intended to arrest suspect; officer neither touched nor applied physical force to suspect, and suspect did not submit to officer's show of authority, but instead suspect promptly disengaged from the conversation and jogged across the street; exchanges between officers and citizens involving no coercion or detention are not seizures and do not implicate the Fourth Amendment.

Fact that particular officer did not physically perform arrest at issue did not preclude officer from obligation, under Michigan law, to ensure arrestee received probable cause hearing; fact that multiple police officers were involved in arrest did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that could merit detention of arrestee past 48 hours without probable cause hearing.