Week of May 13, 2024

Clearly established that individual had constitutional right not to be shot with stun gun when he was not actively resisting.

Transgender woman alleged that prison officials violated her constitutional rights by using excessive force, stripping her clothes off in view of other inmate, and retaliating for filing complaints against them; removal of clothes was search under 4th Amendment; not clearly established that equal protection clause prohibited officials from engaging in gender identity discrimination; not clearly established that inmate had First Amendment right to wear gender identity conforming clothing; not clearly established that inmate had First Amendment right to require prison officials to use her pre

Officers violated arrestee’s right to be free from excessive force when they allegedly used stun gun on him and kicked him as he lay in non-resistant state on the ground; no qualified immunity.

Officer may conduct pat-down search of suspect only where he has reason to believe he's dealing with an armed and dangerous individual; presence in an area prone to drug use, alcohol use, and violence is insufficient.

Officer’s claim that plaintiff's guilty plea to charge of attempting to resist arrest barred him from asserting that officer violated his rights by gratuitously punching him in the face was effectively reviewable on appeal, and thus court of appeals lacked jurisdiction under collateral order doctrine over officer’s Heck claim on interlocutory appeal of district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Actual malice is not required to succeed on 4th Amendment malicious prosecution claim, but defendant must have made deliberate or reckless falsehoods; mere negligence will not create liability; fact that police officer did not make decision to prosecute does not absolve officer from liability, where officer included falsehoods in investigatory materials, knowing that prosecutorial reliance was likely and those materials actually influenced prosecutors decision to bring charges.

Evangelist arrested when he refused to move as ordered by officers when others abused and physically assaulted him; court reverses denial of preliminary injunction, finding content-based heckler’s veto: defined as “government silences particular speech or a particular speaker due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.”

Clearly established by 2018 that non-dangerous, non-actively resistant, and at least partially subdued arrestee had 4th Amendment right to be free from excessive force in form of head strikes.

In 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecution of sheriff, case law gave sheriff fair warning that prolonged use of restraint chairs against uncompliant, nonresistant pretrial detainees constituted excessive force.

Evidence of officer’s previous violations of department policies constituted improper character evidence and was not admissible as other acts evidence to show intent in shooting case.