11th Circuit

Not clearly established that decision to immediately run unresponsive inmate from prison's common area to medical treatment room, rather than to permit nurses on site to provide medical assessment, violated Eighth Amendment; officers had initially attempted to obtain on-scene medical assistance but had to send nurses away due to inmate's violent behavior, officers acted in good faith and reasonable belief that medical unit would be more private, more secure, and have better medical equipment.

Court may consider video evidence not mentioned in complaint where authenticity is not challenged, and video is central to defendants’ claims on motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss; affirming dismissal.

Eleventh Circuit decides for first time that shooting domestic animal constitutes a seizure under Fourth Amendment; reasonable officer would have known it was unlawful to shoot incapacitated dog.

Court finds investigation establishing probable cause for arrest warrant adequate, although not perfect; court upholds district court’s rejection of plaintiff’s expert testimony on the matter.

Court finds material facts were omitted from arrest warrant affidavit and when omissions were corrected, the affidavit failed to establish arguable probable cause; reasonable jury could find that detective intentionally or recklessly left out information that exonerated plaintiff and if jury so found, detective would not be entitled to qualified immunity; when District Attorney dropped charges, criminal case was terminated favorably to plaintiff.

Arresting plaintiff for moving a barricade to exit a private parking lot violated her rights—no probable cause because law did not prohibit her from removing barricade and no signs prohibited its removal; court folds excessive forest claim into illegal seizure of the person claim, because if an officer does not have the right to make an arrest, he does not have the right to use any degree of force in making that arrest.

Officers violated arrestee’s right to be free from excessive force when they allegedly used stun gun on him and kicked him as he lay in non-resistant state on the ground; no qualified immunity.

In 18 U.S.C. § 242 prosecution of sheriff, case law gave sheriff fair warning that prolonged use of restraint chairs against uncompliant, nonresistant pretrial detainees constituted excessive force.

Evidence of officer’s previous violations of department policies constituted improper character evidence and was not admissible as other acts evidence to show intent in shooting case.

Not clearly established that deputy violated arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights in requiring him to identify himself during lawful traffic stop; N.B. there are three separate opinions in this case, including one dissent thus it’s unclear what precedential value it has with respect to the reasoning.