Category Archives: Excessive force

SCOTUS: Barnes v. Felix: The “totality of circumstances” in excessive force cases includes the entire encounter, not just the moments before force was used

The “totality of circumstances” in excessive force cases includes the entire encounter, not just the moments before force was used. Barnes v. Felix, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1834 (May 15, 2025) (SCOTUSBlog). From the Syllabus:

Posted in Excessive force, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS: Barnes v. Felix: The “totality of circumstances” in excessive force cases includes the entire encounter, not just the moments before force was used

CA7: Skeletal 4A claim doesn’t support relief

A caution about pleading in a § 1983 Fourth Amendment case: Plaintiff loses because of his skeletal claims in the complaint. “We express no opinion on whether the officers needed to handcuff Petersen, transport him in a police vehicle to … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Excessive force | Comments Off on CA7: Skeletal 4A claim doesn’t support relief

CA11: Punching subdued arrestee showed excessive force

Punching an arrestee in the head after he was subdued overcame qualified immunity. Jones v. Ceinski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11181 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025).* “In this case, undisputed facts support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA11: Punching subdued arrestee showed excessive force

W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure

The use of stop sticks was a seizure, but here it was justified. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86127 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 4, 2025).* There was nexus for defendant’s place, and the Franks claim isn’t material. United … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Excessive force, Nexus, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure

CA4: Where materiality fails under Franks, falsity doesn’t matter

The district court concluded that there was no false statement for Franks purposes, but that doesn’t even have to be decided. It certainly wasn’t material. Hedgepeth v. Nash Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10868 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).* It … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: Where materiality fails under Franks, falsity doesn’t matter

CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

Downloading data from a planted GPS device violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. McNeely v. Loeschner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9537 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). The facts of the planted device are below: McNeely v. City of Sparks, 2024 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

M.D.Fla.: In civil rights prosecution, 4A training information admitted for willfulness, not to prove a constitutional violation

In an excessive force civil rights prosecution, evidence of training on use of force was relevant and, here, admitted for a limited purpose. “So Martin’s testimony was relevant to willfulness, and the Court’s instructions—instructions Defendant and the Government jointly proposed—made … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Excessive force | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: In civil rights prosecution, 4A training information admitted for willfulness, not to prove a constitutional violation

CA11: Good Samaritan with a gun near a shooting was not unconstitutionally shot by police

Plaintiff’s decedent was in a shopping mall lawfully carrying a gun. When a shooting occurred, he drew his weapon and advanced to provide assistance. An officer on patrol in the mall saw him with the gun moving toward a man … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on CA11: Good Samaritan with a gun near a shooting was not unconstitutionally shot by police

N.D.N.Y.: No REP in workplace computer

Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his workplace computer. Zennamo v. Cty. of Oneida, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66916 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2025). One officer accidentally shooting another when using deadly force against a civilian was not an … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Excessive force, Informant hearsay, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: No REP in workplace computer

D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s 242 paragraph § 1983 complaint calls into question his criminal conviction, so it’s barred by Heck. Turner v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55052 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025).* “Here, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful imprisonment and … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

CA9: No QI for nearly destroying a house in a search for a person to arrest

Summary judgment and qualified immunity were properly denied where officers searching for someone other than the plaintiff in plaintiff’s house [apparently] gratuitously nearly destroyed it, breaking all windows, toilets, leaving water running in the house, appliances, furniture, and a car … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: No QI for nearly destroying a house in a search for a person to arrest

D.D.C.: BLM 1A speech restriction claim can proceed as a class action

A class claim for the June 2020 Lafayette Square BLM protest is certified for the First Amendment speech restriction claims but not the retaliation claims because they do not satisfy commonality under Rule 23(a). Damages claims can be pursued separately. … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Nexus | Comments Off on D.D.C.: BLM 1A speech restriction claim can proceed as a class action

CA8: Dog sniff at apt door was reasonable under existing precedent

A drug dog sniff at defendant’s apartment door was reasonable under well-established circuit precedent. There’s no evidence the dog’s nose went under the door. United States v. Peck, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5710 (8th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025). Plaintiff’s condition … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Dog sniff, Excessive force, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA8: Dog sniff at apt door was reasonable under existing precedent

OR: Petr’s post-conviction 4A denied for lack of specifics and context

Defendant’s post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim was properly denied for not telling the court what evidence was improperly admitted, where it appears in the record, and how it affected the outcome. Zyst v. Kelly, 338 Or App 597 (Mar. 12, 2025). … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on OR: Petr’s post-conviction 4A denied for lack of specifics and context

CA5: The affidavit for SW was more than “bare bones” and the GFE applied

The affidavit for the warrant wasn’t “bare bones.” It alleged facts and nexus could be inferred, even if probable cause couldn’t be fully shown. Therefore, the good faith exception applied. United States v. Norman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908 (5th … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Excessive force, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA5: The affidavit for SW was more than “bare bones” and the GFE applied

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix by Michael J.Z. Mannheimer:

Posted in Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

For this cell phone search, “As explained above, however, the first and fourth search categories are sufficiently specific, and defendant conceded below that the third category is sufficiently specific. Further, the sixth category’s command to search for location information—as circumscribed … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

TN: That officer can’t tell difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC from plain smell

The fact the officer can’t tell the difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause by plain smell. The stop was justified by the community caretaking function because he was asleep at an intersection. State v. Jones, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: That officer can’t tell difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC from plain smell

CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

“An officer’s use of a Taser in dart-mode ‘constitute[s] an intermediate, significant level of force.’ … But under the Graham factors, Officer Swindling’s brief Taser use was justified under the circumstances. First, Sharif had assaulted his daughter’s mother; stolen a … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

TN: Ptf’s actions at DV call justified officers’ greater force

The totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the domestic violence call, appellant’s armed presence near the scene, his rapid movement towards the officers while armed, and the short timeframe, made the officers’ use of deadly force objectively reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Excessive force, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on TN: Ptf’s actions at DV call justified officers’ greater force