CA8: Handcuffing for two minutes was not an unreasonable seizure when based on furtive movements

Plaintiffs’ handcuffing for two minutes because of furtive movements was reasonable. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the investigative detention did not become an arrest here because Officer Marzolf only used handcuffs briefly (under two minutes) when he had two indications that one of the boys may have been armed. Thus, Officer Marzolf is also entitled to qualified immunity on the de-facto-arrest claim.” Pollreis v. Marzolf, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24259 (8th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).*

CSLI before Carpenter was properly obtained. United States v. Walton, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24328 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).*

This was a shooting at the border, and the court finds Hernandez v. Mesa controlling and denies a Bivens remedy. Perez v. United States, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24341 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021). See Bloomberg Law, Widow of Rock-Throwing Mexican Shot on Border Has No Remedy by Bernie Pazanowski

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell site location information, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.