Excessive Force

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.

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.