5th Circuit

Officer’s telephone call
criticizing plaintiff for talking to reporter did not violate First Amendment where plaintiff
was merely “scared,” an insufficient injury.

Officer could be held liable
where probable cause that existed from telephone call had dissipated by time of arrest.

Former prosecutor’s
opinions re: probable cause and retaliatory prosecution inadmissible as constituting
conclusions of law.

In suit for retaliatory prosecution and prosecution without probable cause, plaintiff failed to avoid independent intermediary doctrine because he did not show that defendants knowingly withheld relevant, material information from grand jury or that grand jury would not have indicted him but for defendants’ actions.

Court credited officer’s testimony he could not see subject’s left hand at time he shot him, thus officer reasonably believed he was reaching for a gun and the use of deadly force was reasonable, although in fact subject was unarmed and dashcam video showed that, and subject had been pursued by police solely for failing to pull over for motor vehicle offenses.

Clearly established that officer could not fire stun gun at non-threatening, compliant subject.

Expert testimony on the absence of probable cause was a legal opinion and thus inadmissible.

Clearly established that handcuffing unarmed and seriously injured suspect without probable cause violated Fourth Amendment.

Where officer shot subject several times and watched him crash into a tree, and officer radioed for police backup for himself, it would violate clearly established law for officer to stand by for six minutes without performing medical care or call for medical backup.

Clearly established that use of deadly force against person who officer knew was not dangerous was constitutional violation.