Corrections officer and nurse were not deliberately indifferent to detainee’s medical needs based on allegedly inadequate screening for risk of self-harm, failure to provide prescription medication, failure to adequately monitor detainee, or failure to provide suicide prevention bedding.
Law was not clearly established that officer’s tasing in the back arrestee who ran and suddenly turned with arms moving in manner suggesting reaching for weapon constituted excessive force, thus officer entitled to qualified immunity.
Taking facts in plaintiff’s favor, officers who kicked and punched suspect—twenty-six blunt-force strikes and two rounds of tasing, while he was face down in fetal position, not suspected of any crime, not posing a threat to officers or others, and not actively resisting arrest, violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and would not be entitled to qualified immunity; court affords qualified immunity to bystander officers for failure to intervene because plaintiffs failed to cite an analogous case.
“Permit officer” who handles applications for ambulance permits did not have authority under state law to conduct a stop, thus acted outside his discretionary authority in stopping and detaining an ambulance that did not have a permit, and therefore was not entitled to qualified immunity for the stop.
Warrantless seizure of vehicle suspected of having been involved in hit-and-run collision was justified under automobile exception to Fourth Amendment and sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity.
Claim that officer entered onto property at 2:00 AM, stood under the carport and asked occupant for his name and driver’s license when he came out alleged an illegal search; officer’s request that occupant accompany him to police car did not amount to a seizure.
Plaintiff alleged that officer came onto his property and requested him to accompany officer to patrol car, that he declined, that officer attempted to grab him and he ran, fell over backyard fence and officer apprehended him; court concludes complaint did not “plausibly explain why [plaintiff’s] flight and trespass onto the neighboring property would not constitute probable cause for [the officer] to arrest him.
There is no constitutional right to be free from abuse of process.
Opinion begins with very quotable and helpful dicta concerning pretextual stops; officer not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting driver where material factual disputes existed; clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that using deadly force against unarmed, albeit non-compliant, driver held in choke hold in parked car would be Fourth Amendment violation; although defendant officer claimed he had a reasonable fear that driver was armed, “[shooting officer] could see if [driver] was reaching for a gun, as could the other officers outside the vehicle, yet none of them—inclu
Jury could find deliberate indifference where officers observed arrestee violently bang his head against interior of police car over 40 times during transport, but provided no medical care.