10th Circuit

Officers entered plaintiff’s front porch with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and patted him down as part of a burglary investigation and found a weapon and drugs; with respect to the warrantless entry onto the porch, court finds porch was clearly with the curtilage of the home; it was clearly established that warrantless search of curtilage is unconstitutional; but court distinguishes entry onto porch for purpose of seizure and holds that law was not clearly established that would be unconstitutional.

Officers entered plaintiff’s front porch with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and patted him down as part of a burglary investigation and found a weapon and drugs; on appeal of his criminal case, 10th Circuit held that the forceful measures used by the officers to effectuate detention elevated to an arrest and they had reasonable suspicion but not probable cause for an arrest so that motion to suppress should have been granted; on appeal from summary judgment in civil case, 10th Circuit says that law was not clearly established and affords officers qualified immunity; although use of forceful m

Officer struck plaintiff in face with flashlight and kicked him twice in ribs during traffic stop; injuries included broken nasal bones, fracturing of orbital bone requiring surgery, depression and anxiety, lost profits from contract to rehab homes; expert was not required to prove emotional injuries—“[plaintiff] didn’t need Sigmund Freud to connect his later depression and anxiety to the beating”; jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, court of appeals affirms district court’s remittitur to $2 million, holds no inconsistency between remittitur and denial of new trial; punitive da

Inmate alleged detention officer, animated by anti-Muslim animus, ignored religious exemption to prison’s beard shaving policy and forced him to shave his beard; inmate stated violation of rights under Free Exercise clause; that officer’s conduct would violate Free Exercise clause was clearly established, hence no qualified immunity; inmate stated group-based equal protection claim and strict scrutiny applied to that claim.

Plaintiff, a parolee, and an atheist, alleged he was forced to participate in religious activities by his parole officer and the director of the Mission where his parole officer directed him to make his residence; genuine disputes of fact on both Establishment and Free Exercise Clause claims precluded summary judgment; parole officer not entitled to qualified immunity on either claim because right to be free from state-sponsored religious coercion was clearly established; evidence sufficient for jury to find that Mission director was a state actor.

Officers who responded differently to domestic violence complaints by woman whose assailant was police officer than they responded to similar complaints against non-police assailants, without rational basis for disparate treatment, violated equal protection rights; no qualified immunity.

Where plaintiff alleged that during investigation prosecutor fabricated evidence in PowerPoint presentation regarding measurements at crime scene that were relevant to whether deceased committed suicide or was murdered, prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity on motion to dismiss.

Hostage from bank robbery was shot ten times by police; court rejects officer’s motion for summary judgment in which he claimed he did not intend to shoot her and never saw her, “court may not simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer”; plaintiff posed no threat because she had raised her hands in surrender; circumstantial evidence was sufficient to warrant finding officer intended to shoot her: fact that she was repeatedly struck by bullets strong implied she was in his line of sight, it was broad daylight, fact she was struck so often makes it hard to believe

Not clearly established in August 2014 that citizen had Fourth Amendment right to be free from officers’ conspiracy to search tablet computer without warrant.

Outrageous decision holding that it was not clearly established in August 2014 that citizen had right to record officers performing official duties; court fails to reach merits of constitutional issue as well.