CA10: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases

“Plaintiffs maintain that, because Salt Lake City Police violated the Fourth Amendment by unconstitutionally searching and seizing Jerrail Taylor and Adam Thayne, their statements should be excluded in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. They advance this argument despite the fact that Plaintiffs undisputedly have relied on statements from these same two men in support of their summary-judgment opposition. We reject this challenge. And, in doing so, we join ‘federal courts of appeals [that] have widely held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in § 1983 cases.’ Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2016).” The use of deadly force here was reasonable or there was at least qualified immunity on the totality. “Moreover, the quantum of reasonable belief that Mr. Taylor actually possessed a firearm would likely have been significantly increased when—less than ten seconds after he started walking away from Officers Cruz and Sylleloglou—Mr. Taylor raised his hands from his sides, appeared to place one or both of his hands in the front of his pants’ waistband, and continued to refuse to comply with the officers’ commands to show his hands.” Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32046 (10th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021).