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.
Stomping on plaintiff’s ankle with sufficient force to break it constituted excessive force where purpose was to restrain subject’s use of his hands while he was pinned to ground by several officers; however, officer entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of circuit precedent sufficient to place reasonableness of officer’s action beyond debate.
In 2013, it was already clearly established that suspects can be secured without handcuffs when they are pinned to the ground, and that such suspects cannot be subjected to further force.
Second use of taser against subject who was subdued by first discharge was excessive, officer not entitled to qualified immunity.
Use of taser against subject who was attempting to comply with officer’s commands but was restricted by recent surgery requiring stomach staples and colostomy bag would be excessive.
Clearly established that suspects can be secured without handcuffs when they are pinned to the ground, and that such suspects cannot be subjected to further force.