6th Circuit

Scott v. Harris does not require court, on the basis of largely consistent story from police and other bystanders that justified police shooting, to disregard deposition testimony of bystander that he initially lied to police during investigation and truth was that officers brutally beat decedent even though he did not resist, that they could easily have handcuffed him, and deadly force was not required; factual issues were for a jury and qualified immunity should have been denied with respect to use of deadly force.

Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for escorting patron at country fair off premises because he was spewing profanities about police and wearing shirt stating, “Fuck the Police,” which was protected speech; factual issues precluded summary judgment on claim that plaintiff’s arrest for disorderly conduct was in retaliation for protected speech.

Initial use of force, striking arrestee in back of head with flashlight or similar blunt object, when arrestee was dangerously carrying his kidnapped daughter down middle of road as cars sped by, did not violate clearly established rights; disputed facts precluded summary judgment on whether officer’s conduct during five-minute struggle with arrestee, including multiple uses of stun gun, repeatedly hitting arrestee with flashlight and baton, and kneeing him in head and face, was reasonable.

Ddelirium tremens are objective serious medical need for purpose of due process claim; defendants must be analyzed individually, court cannot impute knowledge from one defendant to another.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that introduction of fabricated evidence violates fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that withholding of exculpatory evidence violates a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and clearly established that a plaintiff need not show that the officer acted in bad faith when material exculpatory evidence was lost or destroyed and the evidence’s exculpatory value was apparent.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that individuals have a right to be free from malicious prosecution by a defendant who has made, influenced, or participated in the decision to prosecute the plaintiff by, for example, knowingly or recklessly making false statements that are material to the prosecution either in reports or in affidavits filed to secure warrants.

Court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity where officer’s argument consisted of disagreements with plaintiff’s facts and district court’s determinations that disputes of facts existed; court notes it is clearly established that there is a right to be free from identification procedures so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that they violate due process of law.

Critical question in cases involving use of deadly force during vehicular flight is “whether the officer has ‘reason to believe that the [fleeing] car presents an imminent danger’ to ‘officers and members of the public in the area.’”; deadly force is justified against “a driver who objectively appears ready to drive into an officer or bystander with his car; deadly force is generally not justified “once the car moves away, leaving the officer and bystanders in a position of safety[,]” but an officer may “continue to fire at a fleeing vehicle even when no one is in the vehicle’s direct path

Officer had sex and impregnated pretrial detainee; court analyzes case as an excessive force claim, applies objective test per Kingsley, finds genuine dispute of material fact about whether encounters were consensual; there is a rebuttable presumption that sexual conduct between officials and incarcerated persons is not consensual, defendant may rebut presumption by showing that conduct involved no coercive factors, court notes that scaring prisoner, offering to speak favorably to prosecutor, and offering privileges and favors, if proven, would amount to coercion.