Whether officer's takedown maneuver to subdue arrestee was reasonable was for jury in light of evidence that officer grabbed arrestee from behind without identifying himself, that, although arrestee initially resisted officer, arrestee submitted to officer and raised his hands once he realized it was officer that grabbed him, that arrestee was not trying to attack anyone at that time, and that takedown caused arrestee to hit his head on pavement.
Rejecting claims of constitutional violations by dispersing protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and “flash-bang grenades”; dispersal of protestors by airborne transmission of chemical irritants and auditory and visual irritants does not constitute a seizure under Fourth Amendment because intent to disperse does not constitute an intent to restrain under Torres v.
Police stopped van suspecting drug activity, plaintiff exited car quickly, officer ran to him and tackled him; court awards officer qualified immunity on excessive force claim; plaintiff cited two cases where tackling was held legitimate, argued this case was not like them, thus tackling was impermissible here, court concludes those cases did not establish “beyond debate” that tacking here was unacceptable.
Officer fired two projectiles, skipping them off the ground at retreating protestors, striking plaintiff in the eye causing a complete loss of vision in that eye; court rejects Fourteenth Amendment violation of substantive due process claim on ground officer did not shock the conscience because he did not intend harm; rejects deliberate indifference standard because officer lacked time to make unhurried judgment.
The question presented is whether the Supreme Court should reject the "moment of the threat" doctrine and permit the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits that have adopted the same approach) to evaluate the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of an officer’s actions.
Not clearly established that officer’s continued use of force against intoxicated individual after he was apparently unconscious violated his Fourth Amendment right, where officer delivered four quick punches in four seconds, and plaintiff failed to identify case establishing that officer had to perceive instantaneously that suspect was unconscious.
Court affords officers qualified immunity for takedown of plaintiff; holds summary judgment inappropriate for excessive force claim based on officers kneeling on plaintiff’s back after takedown due to factual dispute about circumstances, but holds crediting plaintiffs account of event, officers not entitled to qualified immunity because “applying pressure to the back of a prone suspect who no longer resists arrest and poses no flight risk is an objectively unreasonable use of force”.
Clearly established by 2018 that non-dangerous, non-actively resistant, and at least partially subdued arrestee had 4th Amendment right to be free from excessive force in form of head strikes.
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.