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.
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