8th Circuit

Firing chemical-filled projectile to stop and restrain protestor in order to form a perimeter where projectile struck protestor constituted a seizure although protestor was not arrested; court (unconvincingly) distinguishes Dundon on ground officer was not dispersing a crowd; projectile struck plaintiff in the face, officer claimed he aimed at torso, court remands for determination of whether officer intended to use deadly force; clearly established that officer was not permitted to use deadly force on individual who previously posed threat to others but no longer presented immedia

Whether officers singled protestor out due to retaliatory animus or were simply acting according to understanding of their responsibilities when they allegedly pepper sprayed him and shot him with rubber bullet could not be resolved on motion to dismiss protestor’s First Amendment retaliation claims against officers on basis of qualified immunity.

Facts omitted from arrest warrant affidavit were critical to probable cause and it was reckless under Franks not to include them; exoneree’s due process right not to have false evidence manufactured was clearly established; exoneree’s right of access to courts was clearly established; exoneree’s claimed right under First and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from governmental interference with familial and marital relationships was not clearly established.

In a case that demonstrates how difficult a jail suicide claim can be, court finds that detainee’s bizarre behavior at time of arrest did not put arresting officers on notice that he was at substantial risk of suicide; medical intake form which detailed detainee’s prescription medications, diagnoses including depression and history of suicide attempts did not show actual knowledge by jail officers and nurses that detainee was at substantial risk of suicide; existence of records from detainee’s prior detentions, showing he was checked by jail staff every 15 minutes for eight hours during eac

Transgender woman alleged that prison officials violated her constitutional rights by using excessive force, stripping her clothes off in view of other inmate, and retaliating for filing complaints against them; removal of clothes was search under 4th Amendment; not clearly established that equal protection clause prohibited officials from engaging in gender identity discrimination; not clearly established that inmate had First Amendment right to wear gender identity conforming clothing; not clearly established that inmate had First Amendment right to require prison officials to use her pre

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”.