Not clearly established that officer’s continued use of force against intoxicated individual after he was apparently unconscious violated his Fourth Amendment right, where officer delivered four quick punches in four seconds, and plaintiff failed to identify case establishing that officer had to perceive instantaneously that suspect was unconscious.
Corrections officers are not constitutionally obligated to override the judgment of medical professionals unless they have reason to know that an inmate is receiving inadequate treatment, even when inmate is in obvious distress and medical staff has misdiagnosed an inmate or accused him of faking a real illness.
Failure to protect claim analyzed under Fourth Amendment prior to Gerstein probable cause finding; officer did not act unreasonably where arrestee was under the influence, crying, had past psychiatric treatment, slammed himself against cell bars, health screen form did not flag whether arrestee was suicidal, and 45 minutes elapsed between welfare checks, but arrestee did not say he was suicidal and said the opposite, and officers did not treat him as suicidal.
Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to applications for warrants; “best evidence” rule did not require officer to attach photo he described; probable cause may rest upon hearsay so long as there is a substantial basis for crediting it.
Refusing to provide identification to a police officer is not probable cause for arrest for obstruction under Illinois law; Hiibel v. Sixth District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) merely held that a state may pass a law that makes refusing to provide identification to police a crime, but Illinois law does not do that; but police here did have probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for trespass, defeating § 1983 claim for false arrest.
First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
First Amendment claim for retaliatory prosecution accrued when plaintiff learned that defendants had indicted him on charges that he believed to be retaliatory, thus statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was indicted, not when he was acquitted.
Failure to explain meaning of column of data in cell phone records furnished to criminal defendant did not amount to failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Officer did not violate 4th Amendment by relying on John Doe informant to get search warrant; officer did violate 4th Amendment and commit Franks violation by misrepresenting to judge who issued warrant that he knew apartment number of premises to be searched when in fact he had guessed at the number and got it wrong; officer violated 4th Amendment by seeking warrant to search for drugs when informant had said nothing about drugs; warrant that was obtained through Franks violation did not protect from suit officer who committed Franks violation for conducting search based on the warrant; of
Factual disputes precluded appeal of qualified immunity issue; question was whether suspect continued to pose threat of serious harm when he was shot; “shooting an unarmed and surrendering suspect who was not actively resisting in the moments before shooting and who posed a diminishing threat would violate clearly established law. Deadly force is warranted only when an immediate threat of serious harm to the officers is present.