Week of October 5, 2021

Officers entered plaintiff’s front porch with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and patted him down as part of a burglary investigation and found a weapon and drugs; with respect to the warrantless entry onto the porch, court finds porch was clearly with the curtilage of the home; it was clearly established that warrantless search of curtilage is unconstitutional; but court distinguishes entry onto porch for purpose of seizure and holds that law was not clearly established that would be unconstitutional.

Plaintiff was mistakenly arrested on warrant for another man with same name for second time, and held for three days and nights after officers learned of information that raised significant doubts about his identity; plaintiff’s complaint established deliberate indifference to his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from overdetention, which requires: (1) the defendant’s subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm in the form of continued detention even after the plaintiff had a right to be released; (2) disregard of that risk; and (3) disregard by conduct that is more than mere neglig

Officers entered plaintiff’s front porch with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and patted him down as part of a burglary investigation and found a weapon and drugs; on appeal of his criminal case, 10th Circuit held that the forceful measures used by the officers to effectuate detention elevated to an arrest and they had reasonable suspicion but not probable cause for an arrest so that motion to suppress should have been granted; on appeal from summary judgment in civil case, 10th Circuit says that law was not clearly established and affords officers qualified immunity; although use of forceful m

Police officers stopped plaintiff for suspected involvement in drug deal, plaintiff was polite and cooperative but could not find driver’s license although he had three other cards bearing his name, officers handcuffed him and kept cuffs on after a clean frisk and consensual pocket search, officers did not perceive plaintiff as dangerous and had no reason to; handcuffing for five minutes absent any concern for safety was not reasonably related to circumstances which justified the stop and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

In suit by members of synagogue against anti-Israel protestors and city, synagogue members had standing (sufficient injury) to bring claims but protestors’ actions on public sidewalks were protected by First Amendment.

Deputy’s roadside arrest of wrong person was reasonable where arrestee and correct suspect had same name, were both male, of the same race, similar in age, and there was a 26-year time period between arrest and when warrant had been issued, even though the men had different birthdates and there was a 40-pound weight difference.

Failure to treat convicted prisoner’s lump on his leg due to rupture of plantaris muscle with surgery did not violate his 8th Amendment rights; plaintiff received other care and surgery is not typically performed for that condition; only grossly or woefully inadequate care can be deemed “cruel and unusual” and to prove that generally requires medical evidence, typically expert testimony.