United States Supreme Court

City of Tahlequah, OK v. Bond

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 10/26/2022 - 13:21

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.

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna

Submitted by Re'Neisha Stevenson on Wed, 10/26/2022 - 13:18

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.

Kong v. City of Burnsville

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 11:09

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.

Manuel v. City of Joliet

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 11:06

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 - Merits Brief

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 11:04

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 et. al. - Petition Brief

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 10:54

Hernandez v. Mesa

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 10:48

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.

Egbert v. Boule

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 10/14/2022 - 10:40

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.

Vega v. Tekoh

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Thu, 10/13/2022 - 17:42

Vega v. Tekoh presents the question of whether Section 1983 remedies are available when a police officer takes an un-Mirandized statement and causes it to be used in the suspect's criminal trial. NPAP members John Burton and Paul Hoffman are representing Mr. Tekoh.

Reed v. Goertz

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Thu, 10/13/2022 - 15:43

Reed v. Goertz deals with the case of Rodney Reed, who was convicted of murder after police declined to test key pieces of evidence for DNA and investigate other suspects (including the victim's police officer fiancé). There were numerous investigation failures and testi-lying about those failures by the law enforcement officers involved in the case. You can read more about Mr. Reed's fight for exoneration here.

Subscribe to United States Supreme Court