Force used in removing protestor from city council meeting was minimal, city had interest in forcibly removing protestor from meeting, although it was low, and balance between intrusion on protestor and city’s interests was reasonable, hence no violation of constitutional rights.
Although initial use of Taser was justified, continued use after subject was handcuffed and shackled and had stopped resisting violated clearly established law.
Law was not clearly established that officer’s enforcement of protest zones violated First Amendment, officer entitled to qualified immunity for preventing journalist from engaging with counterprotester.
Officers did not demonstrate objective unreasonableness or deliberate indifference when they failed to recognize that person arrested following stop for expired vehicle registration had overdosed on drugs, where she vomited, but denied withdrawing or detoxing, stated she had not eaten anything, stated she was sick, her stomach was turning, and she was pregnant, and officers found no drugs in her car.
Plaintiff had no cause of action under § 1983 against officer who allegedly lied during state administrative proceeding concerning suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license; state provided sufficient postdeprivation process to foreclose procedural due process claim; officer’s conduct was unauthorized under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).
Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for dog bite was barred by Heck where plaintiff pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, which under California law requires that obstructive acts occurred while officer was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties, and plaintiff could not separate dog bite from his actions that formed the basis of his conviction.
Defendants imposed jail sanction on plaintiff on probation assigned to sex offender treatment program for refusing to admit guilt of sexual misconduct for which he had been convicted while appeal was pending; court holds plaintiff had no cause of action for violation of Fifth Amendment right to remain silent because he did not make an incriminating statement, nor was one used against him in a criminal case; officials’ actions did not violate core Fifth Amendment right, but only judge-made prophylactic rule shielding individuals from government compulsion to make incriminating statements, an
Action for excessive force was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and under California law such conviction is valid only when officer was acting lawfully at time that offense against officer was committed and criminal jury was so instructed; court notes that Heck would not bar claim where conviction and § 1983 action are based on different actions taken during one continuous transaction.
Massage industry was a “closely regulated” industry in California and warrantless search of massage parlor came within exception to warrant requirement for an administrative search of a “closely regulated” business; three necessary requirements were met: curtailing prostitution and human trafficking is a substantial government interest; warrant exception is necessary to further the regulatory scheme considering the potential ease of concealing violations; the inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application provided a constitutionally adequate substitute for a
Prison guard who screened and “checked in” on prisoner’s calls with lawyer representing him on civil, but not criminal, matter was entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of precedent establishing a clear constitutional right.