In an excessive force civil rights prosecution, evidence of training on use of force was relevant and, here, admitted for a limited purpose. \u201cSo Martin’s testimony was relevant to willfulness, and the Court’s instructions\u2014instructions Defendant and the Government jointly proposed\u2014made clear that training standards do not inform the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard.\u201d United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73996 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an excessive force case, the Fifth Circuit finds a near unpublished case not part of the \u201crobust consensus of persuasive authority\u201d and reverses the qualified immunity determination. Still, it leaves open revival of the claims after discovery. Nevarez v. Dorris, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9267 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff prisoner\u2019s claim about the alleged excessive use of restraints during his transport was an Eighth Amendment claim, not a Fourth. Lucas v. Quiros, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74089 (D. Conn. Apr. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In an excessive force civil rights prosecution, evidence of training on use of force was relevant and, here, admitted for a limited purpose. \u201cSo Martin’s testimony was relevant to willfulness, and the Court’s instructions\u2014instructions Defendant and the Government jointly proposed\u2014made … Continue reading