CA5: A jury will have to decide reasonableness of excessive force used against a suicidal man

A jury needs to decide whether this officer’s use of deadly force on a suicidal suspect was reasonable. it was “clearly established — and possibly even obvious — that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots an unarmed, incapacitated suspect who is moving away from everyone present at the scene.” “The Fourth Amendment turns on reasonableness. And ‘[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.’ This allowance is particularly understandable when police officers encounter suicidal suspects. At some point, however, and even in the most difficult circumstances, the reasonableness rope ends. Here, the district court decided a jury should determine whether it ended after Officer Harvel’s first shot. We agree and therefore affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment.” Roque v. Harvel, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 9547 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021).*

Plaintiff sued over a state court seizure order of records of a bail bond business, but he fails to state a claim under § 1983 because none of the defendants sued applied for the supposed invalid order. His proposed amended complaint also fails to state a claim under qualified immunity and leave to amend is denied. McClain v. Trendel, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63828 (M.D. N.C. Apr. 1, 2021).* [Sounds also like Younger would bar relief.]

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.