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.
Coerced confession claims cannot be asserted under a fabrication of evidence theory; coercive interrogation exists when officer’s tactics undermine suspect’s ability to exercise free will, rendering statements involuntary; court denies qualified immunity on Fifth Amendment claim that officers continued to question juvenile after he invoked right to silence, requested attorney, and that officers threatened juvenile with harsher penalties if he continued to “lie” and did not confess; juvenile’s statement, “Could I have an attorney?
Court applies previously recognized right to be free of judicial deception and fabrication of evidence in violation of due process rights in civil child custody cases; requires showing that defendant deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to a finding; holds that allegations were sufficient to establish that defendants obtained authorization for children’s medical examinations with reckless disregard for truth with respect to whether parents had been contacted.
Excessive force claim was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and jury in criminal trial was told that it could convict defendant only if officer was lawfully performing his duties.
Pretrial detainee’s right to proper medical screening was clearly established, nurse could be liable for instituting alcohol withdrawal protocol rather than opiate withdrawal protocol, despite fact decedent told her of his heroin addiction; pretrial detainee had a right to direct-view safety check to determine whether his presentation indicated the need for medical treatment, but right was not clearly established prior to this opinion.
If motorist was at most passively resisting officers by refusing to produce driver’s license, tripping him while holding his arms behind his back constituted excessive force.