11th Circuit

Where county jail employees opened and scanned legal mail into computer that contained memory chip, they could access mail outside of detainee’s presence in the future in violation of his First Amendment rights.

Clearly established that it was excessive force to slam person into a car during arrest for relatively minor offense when suspect did not endanger anyone else, did not resist, and did not attempt to escape, and that officers could not engage in additional unnecessary force, such as gratuitously overtightening handcuffs and refusing to adjust them in response to complaints of “excruciating pain” followed by numbness; no qualified immunity.

Not clearly established that officer acted with deliberate indifference to arrestee's complaints that handcuffs were causing numbness and injury if he drove about 25 minutes to jail where arrestee could receive medical attention, instead of stopping on road or driving to a nearby hospital for medical assistance; qualified immunity.

Officer who made traffic stop could ask passenger to identify himself even though he had no reasonable suspicion that passenger was a risk to his safety, intrusion into passenger’s liberty justified by general concerns about officer safety, passenger’s failure to identify himself provided probable cause for his arrest.

Clarifying standards in 11th Circuit following District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577 (2018), and
Washington v. Howard, 25 F.4 th 891 (11 th Cir. 2022); “probable cause exists where a
reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances,
including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a substantial chance of
criminal activity,” and “arguable probable cause exists where a reasonable officer,
looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted

Although application for
warrant contained misstatements, remaining information established probable cause,
thus no Fourth Amendment violation.

Not clearly established that officer acted with deliberate indifference to transported arrestee's complaints that handcuffs were causing numbness and injury if he drove about 25 minutes to jail where arrestee could receive medical attention, instead of stopping on road or driving to a nearby hospital for medical assistance.

Clearly established that officers used excessive force if they slammed person into car during arrest for a relatively minor offense when suspect did not endanger anyone else, did not resist, and did not attempt to escape and that officers could not engage in additional unnecessary force, such as gratuitously overtightening handcuffs and refusing to adjust them in response to complaints of “excruciating pain” followed by numbness.

Placing inmate in disciplinary/segregated confinement constitutes “adverse action” for First Amendment retaliation claim; if inmate is found guilty of disciplinary infraction after being afforded due process and there is evidence to support the disciplinary panel’s finding, he cannot assert a retaliation claim.

Claim that officers used excessive force against prisoner in his cell was not barred by Heck because decision that force was excessive would not compel conclusion that disciplinary finding that prisoner engaged in misconduct was invalid.