Excessive Force

Officer responding to domestic dispute did not use excessive force against woman he took to the ground when she resisted order to get on the ground and then used his foot to force her into squad car when she was resisting.

If plaintiff was not actively resisting the police, officer violated clearly established rights by taking her to the ground with enough force to break bones and then pinning her there, even if plaintiff touched officer’s arm and raised her other hand, holding a cell phone, near officer’s head.

Initial use of force, striking arrestee in back of head with flashlight or similar blunt object, when arrestee was dangerously carrying his kidnapped daughter down middle of road as cars sped by, did not violate clearly established rights; disputed facts precluded summary judgment on whether officer’s conduct during five-minute struggle with arrestee, including multiple uses of stun gun, repeatedly hitting arrestee with flashlight and baton, and kneeing him in head and face, was reasonable.

Denying summary judgment to St. Louis, MO, officers on excessive force claim during protest where plaintiff was boxed into an intersection, pepper sprayed, arrested, and restrained with zip ties; court finds factual disputes with respect to illegal seizure and excessive force; finds factual disputes as to whether subordinate officers acted reasonably in following orders from superiors; “Subordinate police officers cannot escape liability when they blindly follow orders. Rather, their conduct while following orders must be reasonable.

Force used in removing protestor from city council meeting was minimal, city had interest in forcibly removing protestor from meeting, although it was low, and balance between intrusion on protestor and city’s interests was reasonable, hence no violation of constitutional rights.

Officers applied bodyweight prone restraint which killed mentally ill man who had called police for assistance; department general orders required officers responding to a crisis intervention training situation or “excited delirium” to place the subject upright or on their side after bringing them under control; officer held decedent in prone restraint with his knee pressing on his back for fourteen minutes; court reverses district court’s summary judgment for officers, finding factual disputes about reasonableness of force and whether the force constituted deadly force, noting that taking

Jury could find that when officer entered holding cell and struck prisoner who had been complaining about his arrest, that prisoner’s arrest had been effected, he was fully secured, not moving, resisting, or posing any threat, not attempting to flee, and there was no need to use force against him, hence force would be excessive and officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Officer responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim, where officer put his knee on plaintiff’s back as he lay on the ground for no more than 8 seconds and only on the side of his back near a knife in his pocket that officers were in the process of retrieving; Court distinguishes Lalonde v. Co. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000), where officer deliberately dug his knee into suspect’s back when he had no weapon and had made no threats, causing long-term, if not permanent back injury.

Reversing summary judgment for officer, holding that jury could find that officer who restrained diabetic face down in prone position for several minutes had applied deadly force to a non-suspect civilian who was not resisting arrest and did not pose an imminent threat to any person or himself; depending upon facts to be found by jury, plaintiff’s rights could be held clearly established.

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for dog bite was barred by Heck where plaintiff pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, which under California law requires that obstructive acts occurred while officer was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties, and plaintiff could not separate dog bite from his actions that formed the basis of his conviction.