9th Circuit

City’s systematic addition of driver’s license check to otherwise valid sobriety checkpoint was objectively reasonable under 4th Amendment.

Officer violates the Fourth Amendment by tackling and piling on top of a “relatively calm,” non-resisting suspect who posed little threat of safety without any prior warning and without attempting a less violent means of effecting an arrest.

Allegation that officer worked with child’s father to circumvent mother’s custody order and misled family court by not bringing order to court’s attention when seeking protective order prohibiting mother from contacting child stated claim based on judicial deception under due process and unreasonable seizure principles for right to family association; law was clearly established, no qualified immunity.

Forcibly gang tackling subject who was unarmed and not engaging in aggressive, threatening, or evasive behavior, without warning and without consideration of less intrusive alternatives, would violate clearly established rights.

Claim of excessive force by police against escaped convict is judged under 8th Amendment standards.

For purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court may properly view the facts in the light depicted by bodycam footage and its accompanying audio, to the extent the footage and audio blatantly contradict testimonial evidence” (emphasis in original.

Family members filed Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim for deprivation of familial association caused by officers shooting family member; court found conduct did not shock the conscience where decedent entered and fled from another’s home armed with knives.

Where facts were disputed as to whether decedent was “on the attack” against officer or turned away as shots in back suggested, and officer shot decedent six times without warning, officer not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment.

Plaintiffs were activists and members of the Sunset Activist Collective and associated with CopBlock, critical of law enforcement, who chalked anti-police messages on the sidewalks of Las Vegas and were arrested under the local graffiti statute; they filed suit for retaliatory arrest; court finds case falls within narrow exception of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct.

Bivens remedy was available to federal prisoner who alleged that correctional officer labeled him a snitch to other prisoners, offered them a bounty to assault him, and failed to protect him from predictable assault by another prisoner; court reasons that “no special factors counsel hesitation” in making a “very modest expansion” of the Bivens remedy under the 8th Amendment recognized in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).