\u201cHarris’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the seizure of the firearm was permissible focuses on whether the submitted video evidence clearly showed that the object in his waistband was a firearm, and whether the officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion that Harris was \u2018armed and dangerous.\u2019 (See doc. 50 at 2-3.) Harris’ attempt to quibble with the video evidence is unavailing, however, as the Magistrate Judge relied principally, not on the recordings, but on Officer Fregeau’s \u2018wholly credible testimony that he immediately observed the firearm in Harris’ possession \u2026.\u2019 (Doc. 48 at 7.) Harris does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s credibility determination and, even if he had, that objection would be unavailing. (See doc. 50 at 2-3.)\u201d United States v. Harris, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118265 (S.D. Ga. June 24, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAlthough some of our cases have applied the Fourth Amendment to school official’s use of force, other cases have held that such claims cannot be brought. That divide in our authority is the antithesis of clearly established law supporting the existence of Fourth Amendment claims in this context. As a result, the defendant prevails on his qualified immunity defense.\u201d J.W. v. Paley<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 18741 (5th Cir. June 23, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cHarris’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the seizure of the firearm was permissible focuses on whether the submitted video evidence clearly showed that the object in his waistband was a firearm, and whether the officers had sufficient reasonable … Continue reading