Week of November 6, 2020

Clearly established in 2014 that tasing cooperative, nonthreatening misdemeanant in the back was objectively unreasonable.

Clearly established in October 2013 that use of taser against suspect who was no longer fleeing or resisting constituted excessive force.

Warrantless seizure of vehicle suspected of having been involved in hit-and-run collision was justified under automobile exception to Fourth Amendment and sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity.

Even with reasonable suspicion that visitor was attempting to bring drugs into prison, investigator violated her Fourth Amendment rights by strip searching her without giving her option of leaving prison rather than being subjected to search, but case law did not clearly establish right to have option to leave and thus officer was entitled to qualified immunity; temporary detention of prison visitor for a few minutes while investigators searched her car did not violate Fourth Amendment.

Claim that officer entered onto property at 2:00 AM, stood under the carport and asked occupant for his name and driver’s license when he came out alleged an illegal search; officer’s request that occupant accompany him to police car did not amount to a seizure.

Plaintiff alleged that officer came onto his property and requested him to accompany officer to patrol car, that he declined, that officer attempted to grab him and he ran, fell over backyard fence and officer apprehended him; court concludes complaint did not “plausibly explain why [plaintiff’s] flight and trespass onto the neighboring property would not constitute probable cause for [the officer] to arrest him.

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

Court notes, but does not reach issue of whether Kingsley requires objective test on denial of medical care claim; court hold defendant was at most negligent and that would not meet either test for a constitutional violation.