CA5: Police accidentally shooting a hostage isn’t an intentional seizure

“Here, the only plausible reading of the allegations is that Doe accidentally shot Ulises while trying to help him by ending the hostage situation. Such accidental conduct does not result in a Fourth Amendment seizure. See Brower, 489 U.S. at 596; …. As a result, Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And even if arguendo Plaintiffs could allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment, cf. Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157, 163-64 (4th Cir. 2001), …, they have not come close to doing so in a way that overcomes Agent Doe’s qualified immunity.” Pearce v. Doe, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6822 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2021).

Younger abstention applies to plaintiff’s § 1983 claims about his arrest and statements to officers. Talmadge v. Zwink, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43549 (D. Alaska Mar. 9, 2021).

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.