County’s
failure to have guidelines for using armored personnel carrier to execute PIT maneuvers
was not deliberately indifferent where representative testified he had never heard of
such use, never thought of it, and never addressed it under policy.
Although application for
warrant contained misstatements, remaining information established probable cause,
thus no Fourth Amendment violation.
Officer’s telephone call
criticizing plaintiff for talking to reporter did not violate First Amendment where plaintiff
was merely “scared,” an insufficient injury.
Officer could be held liable
where probable cause that existed from telephone call had dissipated by time of arrest.
Former prosecutor’s
opinions re: probable cause and retaliatory prosecution inadmissible as constituting
conclusions of law.
Not clearly
established as of November 2016 that use of force to disperse a crowd constitutes a
seizure; concluding from that the need for training and supervision on dispersal of
protestors was not so obvious that it can be characterized as deliberate indifference to
the protestors’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizures; for same reason,
insufficient showing of deliberate indifference by supervisors.