Plaintiff fled to his car in his garage to avoid misdemeanor arrest for DUI; not clearly established that police could not use canine where officers used minimal force at beginning of encounter and escalated to canine when other methods were unsuccessful.
Officer followed, then struggled with, then shot and killed emotionally disturbed man; district court dismissed § 1983 claim and negligence claim; plaintiff appealed only negligence claim and court reversed, noting that California negligence law on deadly force was broader than Fourth Amendment and that officer’s pre-shooting conduct could render his behavior unreasonable; jury could find: that officer had reason to be aware that decedent was mentally ill, that officer failed to follow police protocol dealing with mentally ill persons before using force, that officer failed to deescalate th
Following a high speed chase, plaintiffs stopped, then made a three-point turn in a controlled manner and their vehicle was moving slowly forward, not accelerating and not pointed directly at officers; officers who fired upon them “seized” both driver and passenger; court rejects officers’ claim that passenger was not seized because they intended to shoot only driver, because stopping car would have seized passenger; construing facts in favor of plaintiffs, seizure of slowly moving car was unreasonable where officers could have easily stepped out of vehicle’s path to avoid danger; officers
Introducing statement made without Miranda warnings at criminal proceeding violates 5th Amendment and is actionable under § 1983; trial court erred in instructing jury on factors that would constitute a “coerced confession,” rather than instructing on failure to give Miranda warning.
Applying objective standard for failure to provide medical attention to pretrial detainee, under Kingsley and Gordon v. Co. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018), to review of incident and summary judgment motion decided prior to Gordon.
In escalating situation involving individual’s access to firearm, deputies were required to make snap judgment and thus standard of whether they acted with purpose to harm applied in substantive due process claim by individual’s wife claiming violation of right to familial relationship, even where officer may have helped to created emergency by his own excessive actions; wife failed to make necessary showing.
Officer arrested plaintiff for violation of state statute proscribing obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty, based on plaintiff’s failure to identify himself; officer entitled to qualified immunity because not clearly established that arresting a person for failing to provide an identification violates constitution, citing Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. of Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
Clearly established in 2013 that officer must provide notice to gun owner of ex parte application for order permitting destruction of weapon.
Issue of fact prevented summary judgment on whether use of patrol car as roadblock to stop bicyclist suspected of minor traffic violation was reasonable; but right was not clearly established so officer entitled to qualified immunity.
Even with reasonable suspicion that visitor was attempting to bring drugs into prison, investigator violated her Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching her without giving her option of leaving prison rather than being subjected to search, but case law did not clearly establish right to have option to leave and thus officer was entitled to qualified immunity; temporary detention of prison visitor for a few minutes while investigators searched her car did not violate Fourth Amendment.