Previous case established that deadly force was unreasonable where plaintiff held knife to his own neck, was suicidal, no one else was threatened, plaintiff did not actively resist arrest, no effective warning was given to plaintiff, and whether other means of force were available raised genuine disputes of fact; qualified immunity denied.
In context of recording police, court holds that Oregon statute generally prohibiting audio recordings of oral conversations “if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained” is constitutional.
Protestors’ First Amendment claims rejected on ground that demonstration presented a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness; verbal dispersal order not required before officers may clear the area.
Rejecting claims of constitutional violations by dispersing protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and “flash-bang grenades”; dispersal of protestors by airborne transmission of chemical irritants and auditory and visual irritants does not constitute a seizure under Fourth Amendment because intent to disperse does not constitute an intent to restrain under Torres v.
Officer denied qualified immunity for using deadly force against man with knife, where subject held knife to his own neck, was suicidal, and circumstances weighed against deeming him an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others and there was a previous case with similar facts.
Not clearly established that officers violated passenger’s rights by shooting her when returning fire from driver of vehicle; violation of rights was not obvious.
Clearly established that use of deadly force against man walking down street carrying gun in his waistband, posing no immediate threat, and failing to comply with conflicting commands violated Fourth Amendment.
In multiple shooting of knife wielding suspect, court concludes shots one through four were reasonable, but a factual dispute about whether plaintiff was still dangerous precluded summary judgment with respect to shots five and six.
Officer’s use of deadly force against suicidal man was reasonable, even though man had already harmed himself when officers arrived, officers did not attempt to reposition themselves when he approached them, man was not suspected of having committed crime, but he was holding knife, was non-communicative, and failed to respond or comply with officer’s command to “drop the knife,” but instead quickly approached officers, holding knife out towards them.
Evangelist arrested when he refused to move as ordered by officers when others abused and physically assaulted him; court reverses denial of preliminary injunction, finding content-based heckler’s veto: defined as “government silences particular speech or a particular speaker due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.”