Clearly established that it would
violate Fourth Amendment to use deadly force against person who was holding firearm
and ignoring commands to drop it but who was standing still in a position of surrender,
was not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and was not otherwise making a
furtive or threatening movement that would suggest he had an intent to use the weapon
to harm the officer or anyone else, no qualified immunity.
Clearly established in 2017 that deadly force against person who called 911 for help, armed with a pistol and in throes of paranoia, would contravene the Fourth Amendment where subject was holding firearm in his hand, ignoring commands to drop the weapon, but standing still in a position of surrender, not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and not otherwise making a furtive or threatening movement that would suggest he had an intent to use the weapon to harm the officer or anyone else; citing prior case, court concludes “an officer does not possess the unfettered auth
Court may not dismiss case under PLRA and contemporaneously rule that dismissal constitutes a strike under PLRA’s three-strikes rule.
In suit for false arrest, deprivation of due process, and malicious prosecution, by exonerees, it was not error to admit in evidence Governor’s pardons based on innocence and to prohibit defendants from impeaching the pardons, where court made clear pardons were not red judicata and did not prohibit defendants from challenging fact of innocence; error to allow former district attorney, based on his knowledge of routine interrogation practices, that he did not find the defendants’ descriptions of interrogations of plaintiffs as calm and uncoercive, testimony constituted objection
Releasing police dog who bit plaintiff twice did not violate constitutional rights where officer had probable cause for mental health seizure and reasonable belief that plaintiff was armed and posed threat to officer.
Brady’s duty of disclosure does not extend post-conviction, but North Carolina state law creates a right to post-conviction access to exculpatory evidence that is protected by the federal Due Process Clause; a claim for violation requires proof of bad faith; bad faith is a jury issue; court reverses summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Clearly established that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify and officer’s decision to shoot, deadly force may only be used when another person is threatened with the weapon.
Well established in this Circuit that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify an officer’s choice to shoot”; where jury could conclude that suspect was dropping weapon, not threatening anyone with it, officer would violate clearly established rights by shooting him; court notes that “the intensity of the situation emanated not from [the suspect], but from the volume and vigor of the officer’s commands.
Passenger’s livestreaming of officer’s traffic stop of vehicle was protected by First Amendment; plaintiff plausibly alleged a municipal policy to prohibit occupant from livestreaming traffic stop; individual officer had qualified immunity because right to livestream traffic stop was not clearly established.
Plaintiff criticized officer no. 1 on social media for issuing her a parking violation; several years later officer no. 2 stopped plaintiff for reckless driving, officer no. 1 heard it on the radio and offered to buy officer no. 2 lunch if he issued a citation, which he did; plaintiff then sued officer no.