Jury could find that strip search of misdemeanor arrestee that occurred after his bail had been posted and at a time when he was not going to enter the general population of the jail, where there was no policy requiring the search and no reasonable suspicion that justified it, violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Neither officers' receipt of emergency services call reporting a potential verbal and physical altercation outside of suspect's home nor fact that officer, when investigating report of potential dispute, observed a female in the home, in combination with suspect's refusal to let officers speak to anyone inside home, established exigent circumstances that could support warrantless entry into home.
Officer who made traffic stop could ask passenger to identify himself even though he had no reasonable suspicion that passenger was a risk to his safety, intrusion into passenger’s liberty justified by general concerns about officer safety, passenger’s failure to identify himself provided probable cause for his arrest.
No clearly established First Amendment right to remain silent during police questioning, Wooley v. Maynards, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) recognition of “right to refrain from speaking at all” in connection with right not to display “Live Free or Die” on license plates is at too high a level of generality; no clearly established right to be free from investigation in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.
Clarifying standards in 11th Circuit following District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577 (2018), and
Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4 th 891 (11 th Cir. 2022); “probable cause exists where a
reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances,
including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a substantial chance of
criminal activity,” and “arguable probable cause exists where a reasonable officer,
looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted
Intentional maneuver during high-speed chase that caused motorist's vehicle to spin out and collide with tree placed motorist in “custody” and created duty under Due Process Clause to provide medical care for injuries; clearly established, when officers purposely cause car accident, duty arises under Due Process Clause to provide medical care to persons injured as a result.
Jail detainee died from methamphetamine overdose, jury could find that nurse who failed to
render any treatment was deliberately indifferent to need for medical attention but not
that deputies acted unconstitutionally; plaintiff not required to prove that nurse was
aware that detainee had ingested lethal dose of meth if need for medical attention
based on severe symptoms was obvious even to non-medical professionals.
Pointing firearm at suspect
who was not actively resisting, pursuant to officer’s belief suspect was obstructing
investigation of domestic dispute, would violate clearly established law regarding
excessive force.
Due Process Clause requires prompt post-seizure hearing for personal vehicle seized because of alleged connection to crime or public nuisance, two weeks is appropriate time frame for hearing.
Clearly established that it would
violate Fourth Amendment to use deadly force against person who was holding firearm
and ignoring commands to drop it but who was standing still in a position of surrender,
was not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and was 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, no qualified immunity.