CA10: Pepper spraying a subdued misdemeanant was unreasonable; no QI

“Addressing the two prongs of qualified immunity below, we conclude that the use of pepper spray violated Mr. Wilkins’s clearly established right to be free from the additional use of force after he was effectively subdued. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. We thus reverse summary judgment for the officers.” Wilkins v. City of Tulsa, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11905 (10th Cir. May 3, 2022).*

Alleged deficiencies in the warrant return papers doesn’t exonerate defendant and can’t form the basis for post-conviction relief. State v. Banks, 2022-Ohio-1463, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1341 (11th Dist. May 2, 2022).*

Seizure of defendant’s smartphone as potential evidence of a probation violation was reasonable. United States v. Liphart, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11835 (7th Cir. May 2, 2022).*

Probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit for the warrant here, but it was not so lacking that the good faith exception doesn’t apply. United States v. Ralston, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78909 (N.D.Iowa May 2, 2022), R&R 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79212 (N.D.Iowa Mar. 23, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Good faith exception, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.