Throwing plaintiff against a wall, applying overtight restraints despite protestations, and pushing plaintiff’s head into car door, where plaintiff was not resisting but making only verbal objections, constituted excessive force.
Excessive force claim was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and jury in criminal trial was told that it could convict defendant only if officer was lawfully performing his duties.
If officer placed overly tight handcuffs on plaintiff’s wrists, ignored her complaints of pain, and yanked her arm with enough force to tear her rotator cuff, he would not be entitled to qualified immunity.
Officers entitled to summary judgment against officers for pushing disturbed plaintiff onto a sofa, which toppled over; court reverses directed verdict in favor of officers on question of whether officer who then kneeled on plaintiff’s back caused additional injury, ruling that was a jury question; court concludes it was legitimate to segment the two uses of force.
If motorist was at most passively resisting officers by refusing to produce driver’s license, tripping him while holding his arms behind his back constituted excessive force.
After pleading no contest, plaintiff had been convicted of two counts of assault and battery on a police officer; the court ruled, “An excessive-force claim against an officer is not necessarily inconsistent with a conviction for assaulting the officer,” and analyzed the incident in detail, concluding that plaintiff had alleged some of the excessive force he complained of took place after he no longer posed a threat, and that Heck would not bar those claims.
Use of handcuffs to restrain driver during traffic stop did not violate Fourth Amendment where driver ignored officer’s requests for license and insurance information, argued with and yelled at officer, and refused to get out of his vehicle.
School resource officer had probable cause to arrest student for battery, but used excessive force when he grabbed student’s face, slammed him to ground, and twisted arm, although student was not acting aggressively at the time, no qualified immunity.
Taking facts in plaintiff’s favor, officers who kicked and punched suspect—twenty-six blunt-force strikes and two rounds of tasing, while he was face down in fetal position, not suspected of any crime, not posing a threat to officers or others, and not actively resisting arrest, violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and would not be entitled to qualified immunity; court affords qualified immunity to bystander officers for failure to intervene because plaintiffs failed to cite an analogous case.
On remand from Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S.Ct. 2239 (2021), it was not clearly established in 2015 that pretrial detainee had right to be free from prone restraint while resisting officers, thus officers entitled to qualified immunity.