The question presented is whether the Supreme Court should reject the "moment of the threat" doctrine and permit the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits that have adopted the same approach) to evaluate the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of an officer’s actions.
This brief argues that appellate jurisdiction does not extend to an appeal over the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on factual disputes.
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the parents of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca sued US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. Mesa was standing on US soil and Guereca on Mexican soil when Mesa shot and killed Guereca. This brief argues that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a cause of action against immigration enforcement agents as it does for all other federal law enforcement agents.
In Egbert v. Boule the Court is deciding whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers carrying out immigration functions.
Dundon et al v. Kirchmeier et al is a case challenging law enforcement's violent response to the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The brief focuses on how the use of less than lethal force against protesters can constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
NPAP members Rachel Lederman, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, and Janine Hoft are representing plaintiffs-appellants in the case.
In AB v. County of San Diego the decedent was handcuffed, hog-tied, hooded in a bloody spit mask, and subjected to 7 minutes of forceful prone restraint by several officers who pressed their knees and fists down on his back. San Diego county's designee admitted at deposition that officers received no training on asphyxia, and were in fact affirmatively encouraged to use substantial body weight on a prone subject to achieve compliance with verbal commands.
Daniels v. City of Pittsburgh et. al. addresses the case of Mark Daniels, who was running away when he was shot in the back and killed by a Pittsburgh police officer. Mr. Daniels was not armed but the officer believed that Mr. Daniels had shot at him earlier the same day. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants relying in large part on the officer's unsworn statements in his use of force report even though there was evidence in the record contradicting these statements.
This brief argues that application of Louisiana's one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions presents significant challenges that are specific to victims of police violence, resulting in an inability to obtain redress for civil rights violations and a perpetuation of police misconduct. Such application is inconsistent with the federal policy underlying § 1983 claims, which is to provide a federal remedy in federal court for violations of an individual's civil rights.