CA9 & NY2: Use of force reasonable as a matter of law

“McLane’s Fourth Amendment claim. The government had a strong interest in the use of force given that McLane (1) was suspected of having committed several serious and dangerous crimes, (2) could reasonably have been thought to pose an immediate threat to the safety of officers when he did not surrender prior to arrest or following deployment of the taser, and (3) had been actively resisting arrest when he led the police on a high-speed chase. … The arresting officers, including Salsbury, could have reasonably suspected that McLane was armed. And before Salsbury struck McLane, the officers’ attempts to use less forceful means to arrest McLane had failed. … Under the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, Salsbury’s use of force against McLane was reasonable as a matter of law. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.” McLane v. Salsbury, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 8579 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021).*

“Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the police officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law by submitting the trial testimony of the police officers in the criminal action as well as their deposition testimonies in this action and the deposition testimony of the plaintiff in this action as well as her trial testimony in the criminal action … The police officers consistently testified in both actions, inter alia, that before the shooting, they had ordered the plaintiff to drop the knife and that instead, the plaintiff had advanced towards them.” Brown v. City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01743, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1908 (2d Dept. Mar. 24, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.