Week of June 15, 2021

Prolonging use of Taser for 15 seconds after plaintiff began complying with officer’s commands, got out of his car, and lay down on ground, was excessive force, right was clearly established in Sept. 2014.

Retaliation claims generally accrue when the retaliatory action occurs because damages result at that time;” plaintiff alleged that he was searched and publicly named a person of interest in retaliation for criticizing the police, claim accrued when search and naming occurred.

High school students at a football camp on a university campus were held in a room for several hours and questioned about observing a female coach while undressing; court affords officers qualified immunity because law was not clearly established as to whether reasonableness standard for student searches of New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), applied to student seizures, rather than probable cause standard, and officers could have concluded seizure was reasonable.

Where compensatory damages were $47,300 and jury awarded punitive damages of $1,000,000, district court’s remittitur to $236,500 was reversed; Appeals Court awarded $425,700 based on a 9-1 ratio with compensatory damages, due to reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct—dropping unconscious plaintiff face-first onto concrete.

Where plaintiff alleged that during investigation prosecutor fabricated evidence in PowerPoint presentation regarding measurements at crime scene that were relevant to whether deceased committed suicide or was murdered, prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity on motion to dismiss.

Trial court properly allowed vocational rehabilitationist to rely on medical records, reports, and testimony about plaintiff’s medical condition to opine of effect his medical condition might have on his vocational outlook.

Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force after he fired gun was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey because his guilty plea to aggravated discharge of firearm was not undermined by claim that officer used excessive force after the fact; officer was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting at plaintiff after he fired two rounds and was walking toward officer, and for failure to give a warning, and for using plaintiff as a shield when another party picked up plaintiff’s gun and began firing at officer.

Disputes of fact precluded summary judgment: whether deadly force was necessary to protect suspect’s wife, whether officer reasonably believed suspect was going to attack him, whether officer gave warning before shooting, whether officer reasonably thought suspect was going to seize his gun; if officer could not see where suspect’s wife was relative to his line of fire, he was not acting to protect her when he fired at suspect (citing Craighead v. Scott, 399 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.