Videotape of search for inmate's contraband phone did not conclusively establish how search was conducted and where phone was located, and thus did not provide sufficient basis for granting officers’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that officers violated Fourth and Eighth Amendments by violently pulling contraband phone out of his rectum in prison shower.
For purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court may properly view the facts in the light depicted by bodycam footage and its accompanying audio, to the extent the footage and audio blatantly contradict testimonial evidence” (emphasis in original.
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.