11th Circuit

Outrageous decision by Judge William Pryor; officer did not use excessive force when at conclusion of high-speed chase, suspect crashed into bushes, officer got out of car behind and to the right of suspect’s car, suspect started backing up, officer fired 11 shots through back windshield and side windows as car passed near him, car rolled across the road and came to a stop with engine running, officer then changed magazines and fired another 10 shots at front of car; Quotes that plaintiffs can expect defendants to use: “When an officer is on foot and standing in close proximity to a suspect

Officer used excessive force when he fired at plaintiff’s car from 8 feet, although plaintiff had not obeyed orders to stop and had evaded talking to police, where car was inching forward slowly, officer had walked in front of car, officer did not give deadly force warning, and there was no critical need to prevent a known dangerous person from escaping and harming others; officer entitled to qualified immunity, however, because court finds no case on point.

Not clearly established that bystander had the right to photograph fatal accident scene, because broad statement of principle in prior case that there is a “right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest” did not establish that particular conduct here violated the right.

Plaintiff filed motion in limine objecting to video, court ruled it was admissible, plaintiff then offered the video himself to “remove the sting,” court of appeals rules that in so doing he waived his right to object to the video on appeal, holding that Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000) applies in civil cases.

Officer who tased juvenile three times in drive stun mode while she was having an epileptic seizure and was being held down by four other officers, with officer subsequently claiming that she was incapable of making a rational decision, had only a tenuous grasp on reality, and therefore posed a risk to herself and others, violated Fourth Amendment and was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Use of deadly force against decedent who had struck officer in the face, resisted arrest despite taser discharges, and bit down on officer’s finger while twisting and turning was objectively reasonable because officer could have reasonably believed that decedent posed a serious threat of physical harm.

School resource officer had probable cause to arrest student for battery, but used excessive force when he grabbed student’s face, slammed him to ground, and twisted arm, although student was not acting aggressively at the time, no qualified immunity.

Standard for malicious prosecution has two elements: “the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizures pursuant to legal process and (2) that the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor”; first element requires “proof that the legal process justifying his seizure was constitutionally infirm and that his seizure would not otherwise be justified without legal process”; affidavit merely alleging it was based on detective’s investigation and eyewitness statements, without any details, failed to establish probable cause

Clearly established in 2014 that tasing cooperative, nonthreatening misdemeanant in the back was objectively unreasonable.

Clearly established in 2014 that beating, kicking, and choking cooperative misdemeanant who was not resisting was objectively unreasonable.