Action for excessive force was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and under California law such conviction is valid only when officer was acting lawfully at time that offense against officer was committed and criminal jury was so instructed; court notes that Heck would not bar claim where conviction and § 1983 action are based on different actions taken during one continuous transaction.
Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review Heck issue on interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity; plaintiff’s conviction for refusing to bring vehicle to a stop under circumstances that endanger human life did not bar excessive force claim based on officer’s shooting after plaintiff had stopped and exited his vehicle; factual disputes precluded summary judgment on shooting.
Officer used excessive force against pretrial detainee who had been involved in fight but had stopped fighting and was orderly and compliant, with hands behind his back, when officer struck him; gratuitous force violated clearly established 14th Amendment rights.
Plaintiff alleged police use of cell site simulator (a device that impersonates cell phone towers) to locate him constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search; court remands with detailed instructions to develop record to determine capability of the simulator, nature of data it collects, what police have access to, minimization in use, and policies that prevented seeking a warrant.
Reasonable juror could find that warrantless entry into home was not justified by emergency aid exception; anonymous call does not provide objectively reasonable basis; court rejects series of factual arguments by defendant; fact that person who answered door opened it only slightly and used her knee to prevent police from opening it further did not provide cause to enter: “exercising her Fourth Amendment rights can hardly be ground for police to circumvent the core right protected by the Amendment”; absent exigent circumstances warrantless entry into home violated clearly established law;
Sedating intoxicated, suicidal, semi-conscious subject of emergency-services welfare check with ketamine without consent during transport to hospital was not objectively unreasonable.
Court grant cert and remands case for reconsideration of facts and circumstances that may have rendered force excessive; pretrial detainee who had apparently attempted suicide and then struggled with officers was placed in handcuffs and leg irons and placed in prone position, held face down on floor of cell with at least one officer applying pressure to his back for fifteen minutes until he stopped moving and lost a pulse; Supreme Court says unclear if Eighth Circuit would say prone restraint is not objectively unreasonable and per se constitutional when subject actively resists; Eighth Cir
Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force after he fired gun was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey because his guilty plea to aggravated discharge of firearm was not undermined by claim that officer used excessive force after the fact; officer was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting at plaintiff after he fired two rounds and was walking toward officer, and for failure to give a warning, and for using plaintiff as a shield when another party picked up plaintiff’s gun and began firing at officer.
Court unjustifiably overrules district court, which found that issues of fact precluded summary judgment, and affords qualified immunity to officers for (1) take down of unarmed plaintiff who had been pulled over for non-violent traffic offense, based on “slight movement” and “tension” in plaintiff’s arm, which would have been insufficient but for so-called aggravating factors that plaintiff continued driving for a couple of minutes after officer engaged lights and siren, incident occurred in “high-crime area,” plaintiff was taller than officers, plaintiff expressed anger and frustration, s
Plaintiff was unarmed, injured, covered in his own blood, hanging from second-story window by his hands with feet dangling when officer punched him repeated in head with closed fist; “right of an injured, visibly unarmed suspect to be free from temporarily paralyzing force while positioned at a height that carries with it a risk of serious injury or death” was clearly established by “robust consensus of cases”; second officer who tased plaintiff after he fell to ground and was unconscious violated his clearly established right to be free from excessive force in the form of being tased while