CA9: Dog handler allegedly allowing police dog to excessively bite ptf denied QI

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rock, Miller allowed the canine to continue biting Rock even though he was unarmed, did not present an immediate threat to the officers or others, and did not resist or actively evade arrest. Watkins, 145 F.3d at 1093 (allowing canine to bite suspect for ‘excessive duration’ violated clearly established law); Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that ‘excessive force has been used when a deputy sics a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control’). Officer Miller is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.” Rock v. Miller, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20466 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*

“But the above-cited cases recognize that the presence of an ‘immediate threat’ is but a single factor in the analysis. Time-wise, the immediacy of the threat is obviously different when the threat of serious physical harm is letting a dangerous felon escape into the community, not a face-to-face encounter with the officer using deadly force. ‘To determine whether a person is an immediate threat, an officer may consider both the person’s present and prior conduct.’ … We consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating excessive force claims, ‘including the severity of the crime at issue.’ … Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity from Arnold’s § 1983 excessive force claim.” Arnold v. McClinton, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20434 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*

The disputed facts don’t resolve the excessive force claim here. Interlocutory appeal dismissed. Davis v. Allen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20459 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.