“Permit officer” who handles applications for ambulance permits did not have authority under state law to conduct a stop, thus acted outside his discretionary authority in stopping and detaining an ambulance that did not have a permit, and therefore was not entitled to qualified immunity for the stop.
Standard for malicious prosecution has two elements: “the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizures pursuant to legal process and (2) that the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor”; first element requires “proof that the legal process justifying his seizure was constitutionally infirm and that his seizure would not otherwise be justified without legal process”; affidavit merely alleging it was based on detective’s investigation and eyewitness statements, without any details, failed to establish probable cause
Clearly established in May 2019 that journalist had First Amendment right to film police performing duties in public and reasonable officer would have known that physically interfering with and intimidating individual filming traffic stop could chill First Amendment activity; NPAP amicus brief filed in this case.
Investigating driver for impersonating police officer justified pat down for weapons because nature of the crime implies possibility of presence of weapon; handcuffing suspect does not always transform Terry stop into arrest, but it is a “rare case” where it would not, facts of this case did not justify handcuffing; officer at time of handcuffing did not have probable cause or even arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff (who was in business of roadside assistance to motorists) for impersonating a police officer; formal arrest of plaintiff was based on probable cause information learned
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.
Police responded to a call for an alleged shooting, which turned out to be a “false swatting call,” a malicious prank by someone not from the address in question; resident exited the home and officer claimed he thought he saw resident reaching for a gun and fatally shot him; court rules jury could find resident was unarmed and not threatening and denies qualified immunity to officer; nothing in videotape indisputably contradicted those findings.
Officer shot and killed naked unarmed man under circumstances, taken in the light most favorably to plaintiff, that defendant admits would violate Fourth Amendment; decedent had physically pummeled one officer and was not subdued by a taser and was advancing on second officer; circumstances did not place unconstitutionality of second officer firing “beyond debate,” thus he was entitled to qualified immunity.
Even though officer shot suspect after suspect threw knife at him, shooting was justified because suspect was bent on harming officer and might have had other weapons or physically assaulted officer with his body.
Opinion begins with very quotable and helpful dicta concerning pretextual stops; officer not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting driver where material factual disputes existed; clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that using deadly force against unarmed, albeit non-compliant, driver held in choke hold in parked car would be Fourth Amendment violation; although defendant officer claimed he had a reasonable fear that driver was armed, “[shooting officer] could see if [driver] was reaching for a gun, as could the other officers outside the vehicle, yet none of them—inclu