CA11: QI denied for entry into house without exigency and Tasering plaintiff

Qualified immunity properly denied for entry into house without exigent circumstances and Tasering plaintiff. “Although George may have had arguable probable cause to arrest Bratt for battery, we cannot find that, as a matter of law, that George was permitted to make a warrantless entry into Plaintiffs’ home under the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. No exigent circumstances existed here. No reasonable officer would believe that Bratt’s conduct presented an imminent risk of serious injury to Plaintiffs or to George. [¶] Nor can we conclude that the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs allow for a determination that George entered Plaintiffs’ home in lawful ‘hot pursuit’ of Bratt.” Bratt v. Genovese, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16239 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016).*

Pro se plaintiff’s Bivens claim was time barred when filed. Rice v. Sixteen Unknown Fed. Agents, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15998 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2016).*