On remand from Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S.Ct. 2239 (2021), it was not clearly established in 2015 that pretrial detainee had right to be free from prone restraint while resisting officers, thus officers entitled to qualified immunity.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting plaintiff in the back when he moved as though he was reaching into his waistband, where multiple witnesses had told her that suspect was armed, although plaintiff was patted down by another officer just before he fled and that officer removed nothing from him, because no previous case clearly established that a pat down that recovers nothing eliminates an officer’s objectively reasonable belief that suspect was armed and dangerous; court says whether probable cause existed was a legal issue, not a factual one.
Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for death of jail inmate due to acute asthma exacerbation and drug withdrawal where decedent was conscious, able to communicate and told officers he did not want medical assistance, although decedent vomited, defecated on himself, and displayed “seizure-like” movement.
Objectively reasonable for officer to use deadly force against youth who was running in his general direction, fleeing from other officers, holding a gun by the barrel in his hand.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for tasing subject lying on his stomach with one hand underneath him and refusing to give his hand to officer.
Stomping on plaintiff’s ankle with sufficient force to break it constituted excessive force where purpose was to restrain subject’s use of his hands while he was pinned to ground by several officers; however, officer entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of circuit precedent sufficient to place reasonableness of officer’s action beyond debate.
Requiring proof that officer intended to deprive defendant of a fair trial to establish constitutional violation for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. For arguments against this requirement, see, Avery, Paying for Silence: The Liability of Police Officers under Section 1983 for Suppressing Exculpatory Evidence, 13 Temple Political and Civil Rts. L Rev. 1 (2003).
Affording qualified immunity from victims’ claim that releasing portions of investigation into sexual misconduct violated their right to informational privacy.
Affirming denial of summary judgment to officer, court rules that if officer shot suspect while suspect was retreating from his opponent in altercation while holding long gun pointed either at ground or sky, and officer failed to provide warning before shooting, use of deadly force would not be objectively reasonable.
Officers entitled to qualified immunity for shooting suspect who was running toward bystanders with a knife in crowded parking lot, and flow of traffic meant if officers had waited there was a risk of hitting innocent bystanders, officers reasonably believed suspect could kill or seriously injure others.