Plaintiff shot by police five times after suicide attempt required to make a more definite statement

In a § 1983 case, plaintiff was fleeing from the police and got stuck in the snow. When the police approached, he shot himself in the chest, and then the officers shot him five times. [Apparently concerned that his suicide attempt might fail?] The claim was to be viewed under the Fourth Amendment and not substantive due process under Albright. The case was removed from the state court system that was a fact pleading jurisdiction to the notice pleading federal court, but the court granted a motion for a more definite statement so the defendants could at least attempt a qualified immunity defense. Barr v. City of Beaver Falls, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79614 (W.D. Pa. October 26, 2007). (Comment: In related news, ABC’s Good Morning America today had a story about a gun and taser cam already in use in Orange County, NY, which may become the norm someday, assuming police departments will also buy all the new holsters for the modified guns. The story is not online at the time of this posting.)

The trial court’s finding that defendant consented to an entry and interview at her day care center for allegedly doping kids (apparently to calm them down) was not clearly erroneous and is supported by the record. State v. Bieber, 2007 MT 262, 339 Mont. 309, 170 P.3d 444 (2007).*

Ohio’s implied consent law is constitutional, but a defendant cannot be separately punished for withdrawing consent. State v. Hoover, 2007 Ohio 5773, 173 Ohio App. 3d 487, 878 N.E.2d 1116 (3d Dist. 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.