10th Circuit

Allowing conspiracy claim to go forward against officers for fabrication, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution.

Pretrial detainee died from epileptic seizure in cell; deputy not deliberately indifferent for failing to check on him when he observed him grunting under blanket because it would not have been obvious that he was having a seizure; deputy not deliberately indifferent for failing to transport detainee when he observed seizure while on medication rounds with nurse because he alerted nurse to “shaking” and detainee received medical care; issue of fact whether deputy was deliberately indifferent in allegedly waiting ten minutes to notify nursing staff that detainee was lying on floor of cell, f

Officers used reasonable force when they shot and killed woman brandishing a gun at them after an extended standoff with hours of negotiations; court recognizes that it is proper to consider whether an officer’s reckless or deliberate conduct “immediately connected” to the use of force created the need to use deadly force, although noting that the Supreme Court has not decided that issue, finding that the officers’ behavior here did not create the need to use deadly force either because it was too attenuated or was not reckless; court finds no case law establishing that it is a violation of

Officers used excessive force when they found plaintiff asleep in driver’s seat of running vehicle, smelled alcohol, forced him to the ground, sat on him, and peppered sprayed him; no qualified immunity.

Officers’ failures to follow county’s policies did not establish a policy of failure to train; failure to install CCTV monitoring in suicide cells in violation of county’s suicide-prevention policy did not establish deliberate indifference; no evidence supervisor sheriff had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s substantial risk of suicide nor of a generalized risk of suicide; corporal who knew of risk and placed decedent in a regular cell and failed to inform other officers of suicide risk was entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Officer entitled to qualified immunity for Tasing suspect who rose to his feet and continued to approach officer after officer ordered him to stop and threatened use of Taser, distinguishing other similar cases.

Right to be free from deliberate indifference to symptoms including psychosis, fecal incontinence, and catatonia was clearly established; fact issues precluded summary judgment in favor of nurse, county, and sheriff.

Officer investigating report of man with a gun entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing man who failed to stop in response to commands, verbally challenged officers, concealed hands in front of waistband and then lifted shirt with left hand and quickly withdrew right hand from waist band; officer could reasonably believe he was reaching for a gun although as it turned out, man was unarmed; court states, “regarding such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment is clear: officers need not wait until they see the gun’s barrel or the knife’s blade before using deadly force to protect

Affirming denial of summary judgment motion of officer, court concludes it had no jurisdiction to contradict facts as found by district court; officer fired at decedent’s van striking only the driver’s side and rear of the vehicle, based on that and other evidence court concluded vehicle posed no immediate threat to officer or others; law was clearly established that use of deadly force when threat to officer was not actual and imminent was constitutionally unreasonable.

In deadly force case, plaintiff moved to suppress statements from witnesses who were unconstitutionally searched and seized; court holds that exclusionary rule does not apply in § 1983 cases.