In suit for retaliatory prosecution and prosecution without probable cause, plaintiff failed to avoid independent intermediary doctrine because he did not show that defendants knowingly withheld relevant, material information from grand jury or that grand jury would not have indicted him but for defendants’ actions.
Not clearly established that officer acted with deliberate indifference to transported arrestee's complaints that handcuffs were causing numbness and injury if he drove about 25 minutes to jail where arrestee could receive medical attention, instead of stopping on road or driving to a nearby hospital for medical assistance.
Clearly established that officers used excessive force if they slammed person into car during arrest for a relatively minor offense when suspect did not endanger anyone else, did not resist, and did not attempt to escape and that officers could not engage in additional unnecessary force, such as gratuitously overtightening handcuffs and refusing to adjust them in response to complaints of “excruciating pain” followed by numbness.
Clearly established in 2017 that deadly force against person who called 911 for help, armed with a pistol and in throes of paranoia, would contravene the Fourth Amendment where subject was holding firearm in his hand, ignoring commands to drop the weapon, but standing still in a position of surrender, not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and not otherwise making a furtive or threatening movement that would suggest he had an intent to use the weapon to harm the officer or anyone else; citing prior case, court concludes “an officer does not possess the unfettered auth
Court credited officer’s testimony he could not see subject’s left hand at time he shot him, thus officer reasonably believed he was reaching for a gun and the use of deadly force was reasonable, although in fact subject was unarmed and dashcam video showed that, and subject had been pursued by police solely for failing to pull over for motor vehicle offenses.