Excessive Force

If officer struck plaintiff in the head with his pistol when he was handcuffed and posed no immediate threat to others, officer violated clearly established rights.

Officers had qualified immunity for restraining deceased who said he was overdosing on cocaine by crossing his ankles and folding his legs at the knee toward his buttocks, while one officer used his knee on suspect’s upper back while he was lying face first on the ground and resisting, but officers did not hobble him and did not apply compression to his chest; law was not clearly established.

Although offense of public intoxication was not serious and arrestee did not pose immediate threat of safety to officers or others, because she was actively resisting arrest and moving away from officers and her injuries were minor, restraining her arms and performing takedown did not violate her 4th Amendment rights.

Forcibly gang tackling subject who was unarmed and not engaging in aggressive, threatening, or evasive behavior, without warning and without consideration of less intrusive alternatives, would violate clearly established rights.

Officers used excessive force when they found plaintiff asleep in driver’s seat of running vehicle, smelled alcohol, forced him to the ground, sat on him, and peppered sprayed him; no qualified immunity.

Claim of excessive force by police against escaped convict is judged under 8th Amendment standards.

Dispute of facts foreclosed qualified immunity on excessive force claim; clearly established that using takedown maneuver to subdue a generally compliant intoxicated person constitutes excessive force.

Deputy violated clearly established rights when he body slammed arrestee to ground although arrestee made no threatening moves, had already been disarmed, had his hands over his head, had not sought to flee, and was no resisting; sheriff was liable as supervisor for policy of failing to investigate numerous previous incidents of misconduct which caused subordinates to believe that misconduct was permitted by the supervisor.

Officers handcuffed subject of a welfare check at gunpoint, so tightly as to cause pain and complaints from subject; court affords qualified immunity citing 5th Cir. precedent rejecting handcuffing claims and distinguishing prior case where handcuffing was prolonged for hours.

Shooting peaceful protestor who was trespassing and obstructing a government function, standing with his hands above his head, with shotgun-propelled, lead-filled bean bags that shattered his eye socket constituted 4th Amendment violation of clearly established law; court finds allegations sufficient to support municipal liability claim, and supervisory claim for failure to intervene, as well.