CA10: “the Fourth Amendment doesn’t require officers to use the least intrusive method of acquiring information”

The district court was mistaken in holding that the defendant officers didn’t use the least restrictive means necessary when he was seized: “the Fourth Amendment doesn’t require officers to use the least intrusive method of acquiring information. See Armijo ex rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1075 (10th Cir. 2010).” Nevertheless, the holding below is affirmed because there still was reasonable suspicion for detaining him. The district court held the officers liable for the Fourth Amendment violation as a matter of law, and the jury returned a verdict of zero damages which the court amended to nominal damages. The defendants do not get qualified immunity because the law was clearly established at the time. Stoedter v. Madsen, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14329 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017).

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.