10th Circuit

Tenth Circuit law is that “[t]he reasonableness of the use of force depends not only on whether the officers were in danger at the precise moment that they used force, but also on whether the officers’ own reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force”; jury instruction to that effect was not required in this case because officer was protected by qualified immunity for his alleged recklessness in leaving his vehicle to approach plaintiff in his car.

Use of taser without warning against plaintiff who had ceased actively resisting was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established rights.

Element of malice may be inferred if defendant caused prosecution without arguable probable cause.

Recognizing cause of action for applying cuffs too tight, turning hands red and causing long-term nerve damage to hand, and then failing to loosen them when plaintiff complained.

Utah law only makes it a crime for a detainee, during an investigative detention, to refuse to provide his name, thus officer lacked probable cause for arrest based on plaintiff’s refusal to provide his driver’s license or other form of identification.

Court find plausible claim against one officer for denial of medical care for prisoner who died from acute symptoms related to withdrawal from heroin, affords other officers qualified immunity; court assumes without deciding that severe opioid withdrawal constituted a sufficiently serious medical need; court concludes frequent vomiting alone does not present and obvious risk of severe and dangerous withdrawal, but that bloody vomiting witnessed by one officer does.

Police responded to a call for an alleged shooting, which turned out to be a “false swatting call,” a malicious prank by someone not from the address in question; resident exited the home and officer claimed he thought he saw resident reaching for a gun and fatally shot him; court rules jury could find resident was unarmed and not threatening and denies qualified immunity to officer; nothing in videotape indisputably contradicted those findings.

Officer shot and killed naked unarmed man under circumstances, taken in the light most favorably to plaintiff, that defendant admits would violate Fourth Amendment; decedent had physically pummeled one officer and was not subdued by a taser and was advancing on second officer; circumstances did not place unconstitutionality of second officer firing “beyond debate,” thus he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable where motorist fleeing police traffic stop had passed by officer when officer fired and officer and driver were alone on a dirt road; officers are “on notice that the use of deadly force is unreasonable when a reasonable officer would have perceived that the threat had passed.

Officer acted reasonably in deciding to shoot subject when subject pulled gun from waistband or pocket; even though subject had dropped gun before officer fired, officer’s decision to fire preceded dropping of gun and actual firing was less than a second after subject pulled out gun.