Single expert’s hypothesis that plaintiff’s decedent was unreasonably the target of deadly force compared to all the other testimony in the record is not enough to overcome summary judgment for the officers. The issue was whether there was a fact question decedent pointed a gun at the officers before he shot them. Summary judgment affirmed. Lewis v. Adams County, 244 Fed. Appx. 1 (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):<\/p>\n
With respect to the use of deadly force, certain specific rules apply. For example, “the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer’s use of deadly force to seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect.” Sample v. Bailey<\/em>, 409 F.3d 689, 696 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Garner<\/em>, 471 U.S. at 11). Rather, the use of deadly force is only constitutionally permissible if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others ….” Garner<\/em>, 471 U.S. at 11; see also Sample<\/em>, 409 F.3d at 697 (noting that “only in rare instances may an officer seize a suspect by use of deadly force” (internal quotations omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plaintiff defeats summary judgment for defendant officers on excessive force claim that they slammed his face into the trunk of the police car while arresting him and broke his jaw. Affer v. Taylor, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31045 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s English pro se filing in opposition to his counsel’s Anders<\/em> brief that claimed he did not understand English to consent did not show that defendant’s search incident or consent was invalid. The arguments to the contrary were frivolous. United States v. Ochoa, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9877 (7th Cir. April 18, 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
Smell of burnt marijuana after a traffic stop justified a search of the car. United States v. Reeves, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31120 (W.D. Mich. April 27, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Murder defendant’s failure to object to testimony about knives found in his vehicle at the time of his arrest that were allegedly stolen in another burglary made his search claim harmless. People v. Prince, 40 Cal. 4th 1179, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 156 P.3d 1015 (2007). [He would lose on the merits, anyway.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading