Intentional maneuver during high-speed chase that caused motorist's vehicle to spin out and collide with tree placed motorist in “custody” and created duty under Due Process Clause to provide medical care for injuries; clearly established, when officers purposely cause car accident, duty arises under Due Process Clause to provide medical care to persons injured as a result.
Not clearly
established as of November 2016 that use of force to disperse a crowd constitutes a
seizure; concluding from that the need for training and supervision on dispersal of
protestors was not so obvious that it can be characterized as deliberate indifference to
the protestors’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizures; for same reason,
insufficient showing of deliberate indifference by supervisors.
Jail officers could be held liable for failing to give prisoner prescribed medications for a back injury, attention deficit disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and insomnia and would not be entitled to qualified immunity.
an NLG legal observer case was reported in the Actionable Conduct report of March 28. Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, which was denied in Molina v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 65 F.4th 994 (8th Cir. 2023). There is a dissent by Colloton and Benton which will be of interest to those of you who represent protestors and NLG legal observers
Officer who pointed his Taser at a woman and told her to “get back” and to leave the area and go home had seized her within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, through a show of authority that restrained her liberty, despite the fact that she was not arrested or detained and was not told that she was not “free to leave”.
Pretrial detainee with back injury, attention deficit disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and insomnia had serious medical needs; denial of prescription medications demonstrated deliberate indifference.
Court’s failure to instruct jury on punitive damages sua sponte did not amount to plain error.
Police power to declare that an assembly is unlawful and to order individuals to disperse is not limited to situations in which protestors are violating criminal laws; for example, police have authority to insure the free and orderly flow of traffic or to control entry by protestors onto state property not traditionally used as a public forum.
In case by NLG legal observers, court holds that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, but there is a strong dissent by Judge Benton who finds right was clearly established; court rejects other theories that police who tear gassed NLG legal observers and others on private property did so in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights; court finds that wearing green hats that said “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer” did not clearly convey a pro-protest message; third plaintiff who followed polic
Short burst of pepper spray against protestor was not excessive, where officer reasonably believed protestor entered police barricade and rapidly approached officers from behind and put his arms out toward officer’s bicycle, despite fact that video footage depicted plaintiff slowly backing away from officer; evidence insufficient to show that officer retaliated against protestor for speech.