Law was not clearly established that officer’s tasing in the back arrestee who ran and suddenly turned with arms moving in manner suggesting reaching for weapon constituted excessive force, thus officer entitled to qualified immunity.
In escalating situation involving individual’s access to firearm, deputies were required to make snap judgment and thus standard of whether they acted with purpose to harm applied in substantive due process claim by individual’s wife claiming violation of right to familial relationship, even where officer may have helped to created emergency by his own excessive actions; wife failed to make necessary showing.
School resource officer had probable cause to arrest student for battery, but used excessive force when he grabbed student’s face, slammed him to ground, and twisted arm, although student was not acting aggressively at the time, no qualified immunity.
Detainee died from alcohol withdrawal while in jail; condition constituted a serious medical need, jury could find that officials who failed to follow doctor’s discharge instructions and had seen inmate’s condition worsen had culpable state of mind to satisfy subjective component of liability for deliberate indifference; law was clearly established, thus officials not entitled to qualified immunity; “[W]hen prison officials prevent an inmate from receiving treatment or deny him access to medical personnel capable of evaluating the need for treatment, they may be liable for deliberate indiff
When officer fired eight shots through closed door of plaintiff’s home, plaintiff was seized within meaning of Fourth Amendment although he was not struck by the shots; this was a show of authority with acquisition of control, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave with the officer firing at his house; mere fact that plaintiff said he had a gun and then opened door would not justify using deadly force, but court cannot resolve on summary judgment what officer perceived when plaintiff opened door; under plaintiff’s version of facts, that plaintiff was unarmed when he open
Officer arrested plaintiff for violation of state statute proscribing obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty, based on plaintiff’s failure to identify himself; officer entitled to qualified immunity because not clearly established that arresting a person for failing to provide an identification violates constitution, citing Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. of Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004).