4th Circuit

Denial of motion for preliminary injunction reversed because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on merits of Fourth Amendment claim based on aerial surveillance program in which multiple planes flew orbits over city photographing 32 square miles per image per second, obtaining an estimated twelve hours of coverage of around 90% of the city each day, in effect tracking every movement of every person outside in the city, allowing identification of individuals through analysis of points on their location history; action was not moot, although program was discontinued.

Finding sufficient evidence and affirming $15 million judgment against officer for withholding exculpatory evidence and fabricating evidence leading to conviction of plaintiff for murder; court notes plaintiff’s case was “thin,” but affords deference to jury’s factual determinations.

Good decision emphasizing that on appeal facts must be taken in the light most favorable to prevailing party and underlining that credibility issues are for the jury.

Plaintiff stated plausible claim for denial of medical attention where decedent was placed in cell for intoxication and received no medical attention despite officers’ knowledge that he had consumed drugs and alcohol, had seriously diminished capacity to talk, walk, and sit, and was unconscious or semi-conscious, and bottles found near him showed he had consumed large amounts of pills; court notes but does not reach question of whether Kingsley required use of objective, rather than subjective, standard.

Plaintiff had car trouble, stopped at side of road, officer initially stopped to assist, then he and other officers arrested plaintiff when he refused to produce identification; incident became investigatory stop when officer told plaintiff he could not leave until he furnished identification; officer lacked sufficient suspicion to justify stop; arrest was unlawful because ordinance requiring identification was unconstitutional when applied outside the context of a valid investigatory stop; officer not entitled to qualified immunity for investigatory stop, but officers were entitled to qual

Affirming denial of preliminary injunction, holding plaintiffs not likely to succeed on claims that aerial surveillance program violated Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy or First Amendment associational claim; program was short-term, involved tracking movements in public, was conducted from navigable airspace, and was not used to target particular individuals, but only those present at a reported shooting, armed robbery, or carjacking; court notes that decision should not be read as endorsing all forms of aerial surveillance.

In 2013, it was already clearly established that suspects can be secured without handcuffs when they are pinned to the ground, and that such suspects cannot be subjected to further force.

Clearly established that officers may not shoot a secured or incapacitated person”; “established that armed suspects can be secured even before an officer disarms them”; “simply being armed is insufficient to justify deadly force." Sok Kong Trustee for Map Kong v. City of Burnsville, 960 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2020) (officers entitled to qualified immunity where suspect was armed with knife and running towards bystanders in busy parking lot and ignored commands to drop knife, although suspect appeared to be under influence of drugs and did not threaten officers.

Clearly established that suspects can be secured without handcuffs when they are pinned to the ground, and that such suspects cannot be subjected to further force.

Clearly established  … that simply being armed is insufficient to justify deadly force.