Repeated sexual assaults, plaintiff’s mental condition, and fear of reprisal could present extraordinarily severe obstacles that could warrant equitable tolling in an appropriate case, but court did not abuse its discretion in denying tolling here, noting that plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence during the period she sought to toll.
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.
Conviction for drug possession did not preclude claim of deprivation of liberty for fabricating evidence of drug sale; plaintiff not required to show additional custody or conviction based on sale charge; Fourteenth Amendment claim based on fabricated evidence does not require custody or conviction; fabricated evidence claim requires: “that an (1) investigating official (2) fabricate[d] information (3) that is likely to influence a jury's verdict, (4) forward[ed] that information to prosecutors, and (5) the plaintiff suffe[red] a deprivation of life, liberty, or property as a re
Officer lacked probable cause for arresting plaintiff for interfering with an officer by posting sign “Cops Ahead” to warn motorists of distracted-driving operation; well-settled that only physical conduct and fighting words give rise to viable charge of interfering with an officer; plaintiff was speaking on a matter of public concern and speech was not “integral to criminal conduct” and was protected by First Amendment; restricting plaintiff’s speech did not satisfy strict scrutiny and was not narrowly tailored.
In a case where the Second Circuit had already held that a jury could find that prison officers violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the majority on a second appeal gives the defendants qualified immunity, see the dissent by Judge Guido Calabresi, concluding that “this ill-founded, court-made doctrine” should be abolished.
U.S. citizen sued Interpol for refusing to delete “red notice” identifying him as a convicted criminal in the U.A.E.; Interpol entitled to immunity under International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).
Detective and sergeant sought and obtained arrest warrant for plaintiff and attempted to defend § 1983 claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution on grounds of absolute immunity; court rejects argument: “Long-standing precedent makes clear that swearing to an arrest warrant affidavit and executing an arrest are traditional police functions, and performing such functions at the direction of a prosecutor does not transform them into prosecutorial acts protected by absolute immunity.
Factual disputes precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity: “we hold that, if a police officer finds an individual’s statements regarding his lack of intent to commit a crime to be credible in light of the totality of the circumstances, or if (at the very least) such exculpatory statements could materially impact the probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate judge, that officer cannot then use the incriminating portions of those statements as the foundation for probable cause in an arrest warrant affidavit for that individual, while either knowingly or recklessly concealin
Sustaining awards of punitive damages totaling $355,000 where officers beat plaintiff unconscious, causing severe injuries, then covered up their misconduct by falsely accusing plaintiff of assault leading to his arrest and incarceration, in consideration of officers’ violence, trickery and deceit, and intentional malice, and compensatory damages were $90,000.
County’s policy of seizing firearms to safeguard them when owner has been transported to psychiatric evaluation after a domestic incident fell within “special needs” exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.