4th Circuit

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.

§ 1983 statute of limitations is determined by state law with respect to personal injury claims; general common law principles determine when a claim accrues; closest common law tort analogy to search and seizure claim is trespass and claim for trespass accrues when it is committed.

Factual dispute about whether decedent was pointing shotgun at officer precluded summary judgment; if officer investigating potential property crime fired from front porch at decedent, in his own home, while decedent was not pointing shotgun at officer, officer would have violated clearly established rights of decedent.

Reversing summary judgment for officer in shooting case due to factual disputes; officer claimed deceased was turning and momentum carried him around, explaining how he was shot in the back, court notes if he was shot in the back while running away unarmed that would violate clearly established rights; “With deadly force cases, special difficulties can arise during summary judgment. Often, the officer has killed the only other potential witness.