CA11: Ptf’s excessive force claim overcomes QI; his facts show clearly established law violated

Defendants were properly denied qualified immunity in using excessive force to arrest plaintiff. Plaintiff’s version of the facts showed clearly established rights were violated. Heck v. Humphrey didn’t apply because plaintiff wasn’t seeking to attack his conviction. Cendan v. Trujillo, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23884 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019).*

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality to get defendant out of the car for a FST. State v. Osborne, 2019-Ohio-3235, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3327 (11th Dist. Aug. 12, 2019).*

A search warrant issued for a doctor’s office and a pharmacy for records. Defendant was a subtenant and lacked standing in the area of the doctor’s office. Even so, the warrant was specific enough to cover the places searched. United States v. Ranochak, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134977 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 12, 2019).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.