Category Archives: Excessive force

Two on excessive force and QI

“We conclude that Detective Minium is entitled to qualified immunity. It was not clearly established in August 2014 that an officer uses excessive force when he tackles and uses a taser in “drive stun” mode on an individual he is … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on Two on excessive force and QI

Philadelphia Inquirer: It should be unconstitutional when police officers kill fleeing felony suspects, Philly DA’s office says

Philadelphia Inquirer: It should be unconstitutional when police officers kill fleeing felony suspects, Philly DA’s office says by Chris Palmer:

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on Philadelphia Inquirer: It should be unconstitutional when police officers kill fleeing felony suspects, Philly DA’s office says

E.D.Mich.: Private security guards conducting search for weapon and turning over to police was private search

Two private security guards searched defendant, allegedly without probable cause, and seized a gun off of him which they turned over to the police. This was purely a private search not implicating the Fourth Amendment. The court also declines to … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Private search | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Private security guards conducting search for weapon and turning over to police was private search

OH5: Officer doesn’t need to be able to quote a statute in court to issue a ticket for violation of it

Even if the officer had an ulterior motive for defendant’s stop, it was based on probable cause of a traffic offense. The fact the officer couldn’t quote the statute in court doesn’t show that the stop was unreasonable or without … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH5: Officer doesn’t need to be able to quote a statute in court to issue a ticket for violation of it

CA5: Use of deadly force against an armed, dangerous, and unpredicable man was subject to QI

Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff could not establish that they used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence indicated that the use of force was justified under the circumstances. Because the officers thought they … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA5: Use of deadly force against an armed, dangerous, and unpredicable man was subject to QI

MI: 4A not violated by taking of fingerprints and photographs during a Terry stop

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by police officers taking their photographs and fingerprints based on reasonable suspicion during valid Terry stops, because plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in physical characteristics that were constantly exposed to the … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MI: 4A not violated by taking of fingerprints and photographs during a Terry stop

NY4: Summary judgment on false arrest and excessive force claim without considering officers’ testimony in underlying criminal trial was error

Summary judgment against the defendants for false arrest and excessive force was improperly granted without considering the transcript of plaintiff’s criminal trial and the officers’ testimony there. Hernandez v Denny’s Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08302, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY4: Summary judgment on false arrest and excessive force claim without considering officers’ testimony in underlying criminal trial was error

CA4: Ptf shot and paralyzed during no-knock raid states a claim and survives QI

During a no-knock entry with a battering ram by plain-clothes officers for marijuana, plaintiff heard a commotion from the back of his house, reached for a gun, and was shot at 29 times, hit 9 times, and paralyzed. The officer … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Knock and announce, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA4: Ptf shot and paralyzed during no-knock raid states a claim and survives QI

CA11: Factual dispute as to where misd arrest occurred, in the house or out, denies QI; it appears force used was excessive

Arguable probable cause supported plaintiff’s misdemeanor arrest, but there is a factual dispute denying qualified immunity to the officers of where exactly the arrest started and how it ended up indoors. That remains for trial. The complaint also survives on … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA11: Factual dispute as to where misd arrest occurred, in the house or out, denies QI; it appears force used was excessive

GA: REP in a hotel room expires at checkout time

The reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room expires with the checkout time. Lindsey v. State, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 623 (Oct. 29, 2019). The defendant officers were properly entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Also, … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Excessive force, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on GA: REP in a hotel room expires at checkout time

CA3: Body cavity search for baggie of drugs was reasonable because of exigency of risk of overdose

Plaintiff’s body cavity search for a baggie of drugs in her vagina was reasonable by exigent circumstances because of a legitimate fear that she could be harmed and overdose if the bag leaked. Carbone v. Salem, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Emergency / exigency, Excessive force | Comments Off on CA3: Body cavity search for baggie of drugs was reasonable because of exigency of risk of overdose

E.D.Wis.: “the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind.”

“As indicated, however, the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind. United States v. Jones, 208 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2000). … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: “the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind.”