Videotape of search for inmate's contraband phone did not conclusively establish how search was conducted and where phone was located, and thus did not provide sufficient basis for granting officers’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that officers violated Fourth and Eighth Amendments by violently pulling contraband phone out of his rectum in prison shower.
Clearly established that use of deadly force against man walking down street carrying gun in his waistband, posing no immediate threat, and failing to comply with conflicting commands violated Fourth Amendment.
In deciding whether in-prison search violates Fourth Amendment, court considers: (1) scope of particular intrusion; (2) manner in which it is conducted; (3) justification for initiating it; and (4) place in which it is conducted; genuine issue of material fact as to whether correctional officers’ purported use of force against inmate—including slamming him to ground, forcing him on to his stomach, and handcuffing him, and then grabbing his hair and yanking his head back and forth, and violently pulling contraband phone out of his rectum in prison shower—was reasonable and justified by reaso
“Even an unchallenged video must be taken in the light most favorable to [plaintiff] at summary judgment if it does not blatantly contradict his version of the facts,” reversing summary judgment in favor of defendants.