CA11: Officers participating in violation of 4A can be sued, too

“Marglli Gallego brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against four police officers. She alleged that two of those officers—whom we’ll call the ‘off-duty officers’—unreasonably seized her in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And she alleged that the other two officers—Sergeant Carlos Luffi and Officer Ivette Perez—instigated and participated in the seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [¶] Sergeant Luffi and Officer Perez moved to dismiss the claims against them based on qualified immunity, but the district court denied their motion. It concluded that Gallego sufficiently alleged in the second amended complaint that Sergeant Luffi and Officer Perez violated the Fourth Amendment by participating in a causeless seizure and the violations were clearly established. We disagree on the last part. Because it was not clearly established that Sergeant Luffi’s and Officer Perez’s alleged participation violated the Fourth Amendment, we reverse and remand for the district court to dismiss the claims against them.” Gallego v. Perez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14104 (11th Cir. June 11, 2024).*

“Here, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that clearly established law existing at the time of the incident would have put the officers on notice that an arrest under section 602.1(b) or 148(a)(1), based on the totality of the circumstances, was unconstitutional.” Lorenz v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14143 (9th Cir. June 11, 2024).*

“In sum, genuine issues of disputed fact preclude summary judgment on whether Foor used excessive force in removing Miller from his truck. Further, if the jury credits Miller’s version of events, then the right to be free from such force was clearly established at the time of the incident. Accordingly, this Court must deny Foor’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” Miller v. Foor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105032 (D. Md. June 13, 2024).*