Detainee died from asthma related breathing difficulties; observing detainee having breathing problems over course of six and a half hours and deciding not to request emergency assistance, where detainee had an inhaler and was within bounds of prescribed breathing treatments, was not so deliberately indifferent to medical needs as to amount to a constitutional violation.
Following slow speed chase
during which plaintiff committed traffic violations, officer shot plaintiff four times while
plaintiff was outside his truck, reaching into the door with his left hand; court at bench
trial concluded officer reasonably believed he might have been reaching for a weapon
because officer could not see his hand, despite fact that dashboard camera showed
both of plaintiff’s hands were empty, officer awarded qualified immunity, affirmed on
appeal.
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.