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.
Issue of fact prevented summary judgment on whether use of patrol car as roadblock to stop bicyclist suspected of minor traffic violation was reasonable; but right was not clearly established so officer entitled to qualified immunity.
Clearly established in 2014 that beating, kicking, and choking cooperative misdemeanant who was not resisting was objectively unreasonable.
Shooting plaintiff twice with beanbag shotgun was objectively reasonable where plaintiff was accused of threatening women with a chainsaw and had a knife in his pocket that was known to another officer; second officer who leaned hard on plaintiff’s back with his knee, causing an injury, used excessive force in violation of clearly established law where plaintiff was lying face down on ground and not resisting after having been shot with beanbags.
Claim of excessive force causing plaintiff’s death, court concludes force was not excessive and subject died of cardiac arrhythmia, in course of discussion court acknowledges that officer may not have followed best practices, but concludes, “police training policies and best practices, while relevant, do not define what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment … ‘The excessive-force inquiry is governed by constitutional principles, not police-department regulations … Put another way, a police officer’s compliance with the rules of his department is neither sufficient nor necessary to satisf
Plaintiff entitled to trial on claim that officer threw her to ground after she was handcuffed, then put his full body weight on her, kneeling on her back, and slamming her head into the ground; clearly established that it was “impermissible to use significant force against a restrained arrestee who is not actively resisting.