The issue in question in Chiaverini is whether a person who has been maliciously prosecuted for a crime can sue if a police officer had probable cause to arrest them for a different crime (i.e. the any crime rule). Our brief uplifts examples of the incredibly unjust outcomes that would result from continued application of the any crime rule (eg.
This brief argues that retaliatory arrests that do not involve on-the-spot law-enforcement decisions—or that otherwise present objective suggestions of improper motive—occur with sufficient frequency to make the need for an effective remedy compelling. At the same time, the course of retaliatory-arrest litigation also indicates that the availability of such a remedy would not threaten the ability of law enforcement officers to operate effectively.
Officers responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on ground they did not violate any clearly established law when they shot and killed suspect who raised hammer behind his head and took a stance as if he was about to throw hammer or charge at officers; Court does not reach issue of whether officers who recklessly create a situation that requires deadly force would violate Fourth Amendment, distinguishing cases that stand for that proposition from this case on the facts.
Officer responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim, where officer put his knee on plaintiff’s back as he lay on the ground for no more than 8 seconds and only on the side of his back near a knife in his pocket that officers were in the process of retrieving; Court distinguishes Lalonde v. Co. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000), where officer deliberately dug his knee into suspect’s back when he had no weapon and had made no threats, causing long-term, if not permanent back injury.
This brief argues that appellate jurisdiction does not extend to an appeal over the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on factual disputes.
This brief argues that pretrial detention in the absence of probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides recourse for such violation.
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the parents of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca sued US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. Mesa was standing on US soil and Guereca on Mexican soil when Mesa shot and killed Guereca. This brief argues that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a cause of action against immigration enforcement agents as it does for all other federal law enforcement agents.
In Egbert v. Boule the Court is deciding whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers carrying out immigration functions.