11th Circuit

Court affirms termination of consent decree by district court, finding that City was in substantial compliance with provisions of decree prohibiting arrest of homeless individuals without cause and protecting their property.

Dismissal of a prosecution as untimely satisfies the favorable termination element of malicious prosecution claim under Fourth Amendment: “After considering both the common law and Fourth Amendment, we hold that the favorable-termination element of malicious prosecution is not limited to terminations that affirmatively support the plaintiff’s innocence. Instead, the favorable-termination element requires only that the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff formally end in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence on at least one charge that authorized his confinement.

Collecting cases standing for proposition that excessive force may so obviously violate the Constitution that no pre-existing case law is needed to show that it is clearly established law.

Officer not entitled to summary judgment on use of deadly force without warning where decedent was arrested for minor offense and jury could find decedent posed no threat of serious physical harm or death to officers; resisting arrest alone is not enough to justify use of deadly force; assuming facts in light favorable to plaintiff, shooting decedent without warning who was being arrested for minor offense after he struggled with officers and grabbed at taser to avoid repeated stunning, but never gained control of it, was “‘so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibit

This Court uses ‘malicious prosecution’ as only ‘a shorthand way of describing’ certain claims of unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment”; “claims of malicious prosecution are not subject to the any-crime rule, which insulates officers from false-arrest claims so long as probable cause existed for some crime, even if it was not the crime the officer thought or said had occurred”; thus even though officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, he had a valid claim for malicious prosecution which resulted in pretrial detention

District Court granted pretrial detainees’ motion for TRO and in part their motion for preliminary injunction based on conditions of confinement during COVID-19 pandemic and seeking immediate release of all medically vulnerable detainees, but Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal.

Clearly established, with “obvious clarity,” that sweeping plaintiff’s legs out from under him and throwing him to ground headfirst, where plaintiff was not resisting and was complying with officer’s commands, violated Fourth Amendment.

Breathalyzer results established plaintiff was not intoxicated by alcohol and there was no evidence she was impaired by any other drug or substance.

Officer’s order to others to stop CPR on youth who had hung himself from tree, without checking for signs of life, would not violate substantive due process rights if it resulted from recklessness or deliberate indifference, but would violate his rights were jury to find that officer was motivated by desire to cause harm to subject.

Pepper spraying non-resisting and handcuffed detainee on the ground for three to five minutes would violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.