Plaintiff was attempted to be stopped by Tacoma police for driving without headlights on. Plaintiff didn’t have his DL on him, and he’d recently smoked crack. Therefore, he drove home at normal speeds and obeyed all stop signs and traffic lights. He wanted the car home so his wife could take it to work the next day. When he got home he was shot by the officer. He states a claim against the officer for shooting him. Plaintiff stated a case for excessive force and no qualified immunity. He was never a threat to anybody. Orn v. City of Tacoma, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2020):*
In the end, this is not a case in which the legality of the officer’s conduct falls within the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Orn, as they must be at this point in the litigation, Clark had “fair and clear warning of what the Constitution requires.” Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1778 (internal quotation marks omitted). What Clark most forcefully contests is whether his alternative account of the shooting should be accepted as true. Factual disputes of that order must be resolved by a jury, not by a court adjudicating a motion for summary judgment. Tolan, 572 U.S. at 656; see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 216 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment).