CA9: Jury verdict that officer violated clearly established rights and precluded qualified immunity

One defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on the merits because the jury found that he violated plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by using deadly force when he posed no immediate threat. Est. of Aguirre v. Cty. of Riverside, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5591 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025).

“‘The dispositive question is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”’ Id. (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). ‘Such specificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context[.]’ Id.” The use of deadly force here was covered by qualified immunity. Rubin v. De La Cruz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5643 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025).*

Window tint justified the stop. Then the smell of marijuana from the car justified more. United States v. Dumeus, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43302 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.