7th Circuit

Investigating driver for impersonating police officer justified pat down for weapons because nature of the crime implies possibility of presence of weapon; handcuffing suspect does not always transform Terry stop into arrest, but it is a “rare case” where it would not, facts of this case did not justify handcuffing; officer at time of handcuffing did not have probable cause or even arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff (who was in business of roadside assistance to motorists) for impersonating a police officer; formal arrest of plaintiff was based on probable cause information learned

Claim of excessive force causing plaintiff’s death, court concludes force was not excessive and subject died of cardiac arrhythmia, in course of discussion court acknowledges that officer may not have followed best practices, but concludes, “police training policies and best practices, while relevant, do not define what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment … ‘The excessive-force inquiry is governed by constitutional principles, not police-department regulations … Put another way, a police officer’s compliance with the rules of his department is neither sufficient nor necessary to satisf

Affirming trial judge’s refusal to dismiss case as a sanction for plaintiff’s perjury in pretrial deposition, where he falsely claimed he had never lied in an affidavit and had never spoken to a certain party, on ground that lies did not concern core issues in the litigation and were fully exposed at trial as part of rigorous attack on his credibility; trial judge did not err in admitting certificate of innocence at trial on ground it was relevant to element of favorable termination in malicious prosecution claim.

Trial judge did not err in admitting certificate of innocence at trial on ground it was relevant to element of favorable termination in malicious prosecution claim.

Rejecting claim that officers created situation that ultimately led to subject’s death by failing to make a plan for the encounter, failing to secure knife block in kitchen, and questioning subject aggressively, provoking his violent resistance; such actions did not violate Fourth Amendment and did not render officers’ subsequent use of force unreasonable; court distinguishes earlier cases where officer’s unreasonable actions created situation where deadly force became essentially inevitable.

Even though officer shot suspect after suspect threw knife at him, shooting was justified because suspect was bent on harming officer and might have had other weapons or physically assaulted officer with his body.

Sheriff violated Fourth Amendment when in place of court-ordered release on specific terms, he substituted prolonged detentions and significant restraints on pretrial release of his own devising, causing jailing of group of plaintiffs from three to fourteen days.

Sheriff violated Equal Protection Clause when, based on race (African American) of defendants, in place of court-ordered release on specific terms, he substituted prolonged detentions and significant restraints on pretrial release of his own devising, causing jailing of group of plaintiffs from three to fourteen days; evidence that more than four in five of the eighty or so people wrongfully detained were Black was sufficient at pleading stage to believe sheriff could be liable for intentional discrimination.

Permitting plaintiff to go forward with class-of-one equal protection claim where officer repeatedly interfered with plaintiff’s ability to move his residence and register as sex offender and discrimination was intentional and without any rational basis.

Merely asking a person for identification does not constitute a seizure; that officers told persons who furnished ID that they could not leave until and unless their name checks were clear raised an issue of fact about whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave; where officers observed plaintiffs violating an aggressive panhandling ordinance, it did not unreasonably prolong a Terry stop to run a brief warrant check.