Two excessive force cases with qualified immunity

“A hypothetically reasonable officer in Brown’s situation would have probable cause to believe that Kohler posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself and to the other officers when he used deadly force. That officer could reasonably conclude that Kohler was threatening them with a weapon — his car. After backing out of the parking space and then turning the automobile to face the exit, Kohler saw the two officers positioned in front him. Brown’s weapon was drawn. The officers shouted for Kohler to stop while banging on his car window. Nevertheless, Kohler drove forward. At that point, an officer would have probable cause to conclude that Kohler and his car posed a threat of serious bodily injury to the officers.” Kohler v. Brown, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169364 (W.D. Va. Sep. 22, 2023).*

“Plaintiff argues that the Officers used excessive force while arresting Lunneen and that they were grossly negligent for failing to provide medical care to Lunneen. The district court found that qualified immunity shielded many of the Officers’ interactions with Lunneen, including their use of a taser and pepper spray when attempting to get Lunneen on the ground. The district court denied summary judgment, however, on two aspects of the arrest: the Officers’ use of force once they had Lunneen on the ground but before they handcuffed him, and Wyss’s use of force after Lunneen was handcuffed. We lack jurisdiction to consider the Officers’ evidentiary arguments at this stage. For those arguments properly before us, we AFFIRM.” Lunneen v. Vill. of Berrien Springs, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25186 (6th Cir. Sep. 21, 2023).*