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.
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.
Officers lacked probable cause for warrant-supported arrest for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, where they were purportedly aware that arrestee had been attempting to comply with requirements and communicated with Sheriff's Office regarding permissible methods of compliance, thus precluding satisfaction of willful mens rea for offences; alleged conduct of officers, if proven, precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity.
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.
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.