Shooting plaintiff twice with beanbag shotgun was objectively reasonable where plaintiff was accused of threatening women with a chainsaw and had a knife in his pocket that was known to another officer; second officer who leaned hard on plaintiff’s back with his knee, causing an injury, used excessive force in violation of clearly established law where plaintiff was lying face down on ground and not resisting after having been shot with beanbags.
Officers reasonably used deadly force against auto theft suspect who led police on dangerous high-speed chase at night, refused to stop at end of street, and drove vehicle near, toward, and amongst officers on foot.
Officers reasonably used canine to apprehend auto theft suspect in his car after they shot him following dangerous high-speed chase at night, at conclusion of which suspect had refused to stop at end of street, and drove vehicle near, toward, and amongst officers on foot.
Law was clearly established that officer could not shoot person with psychiatric disability in his own home who was incapacitated and no longer posed a threat, even though he had previously been armed: “the suspect’s possession of a weapon at some point in the incident does not provide an officer with carte blanche to use deadly force”; officer’s conduct violated Fourth Amendment but did not “shock the conscience,” thus did not justify substantive due process award to deceased’s father for his liberty interest in the companionship and society of his son.
On appeal regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss Muslim plaintiffs’ claims regarding illegal electronic surveillance by an FBI managed informant, court rules: plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with government agent that were recorded; plaintiffs had reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations in mosque prayer hall when informant was not present, but defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for taping conversations because as of 2006 and 2007 no federal or state court had held that individuals generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy
No qualified immunity for deputy sheriff and justice of the peace for arresting plaintiff based solely on testimony by another that he was not a citizen and plaintiff’s failure to establish immigration status; “illegal presence … does not, without more, provide probable cause of the criminal violation of illegal entry,” citing Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).