Week of July 17, 2024

Firing chemical-filled projectile to stop and restrain protestor in order to form a perimeter where projectile struck protestor constituted a seizure although protestor was not arrested; court (unconvincingly) distinguishes Dundon on ground officer was not dispersing a crowd; projectile struck plaintiff in the face, officer claimed he aimed at torso, court remands for determination of whether officer intended to use deadly force; clearly established that officer was not permitted to use deadly force on individual who previously posed threat to others but no longer presented immedia

Not clearly established that officers violated passenger’s rights by shooting her when returning fire from driver of vehicle; violation of rights was not obvious.

Court may consider video evidence not mentioned in complaint where authenticity is not challenged, and video is central to defendants’ claims on motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss; affirming dismissal.

Eleventh Circuit decides for first time that shooting domestic animal constitutes a seizure under Fourth Amendment; reasonable officer would have known it was unlawful to shoot incapacitated dog.

Whether officers singled protestor out due to retaliatory animus or were simply acting according to understanding of their responsibilities when they allegedly pepper sprayed him and shot him with rubber bullet could not be resolved on motion to dismiss protestor’s First Amendment retaliation claims against officers on basis of qualified immunity.