CA8: Takedown was lawful, assault thereafter wasn’t

Plaintiff’s takedown was lawful, but not the assault after he was down. “It is even more clearly established now. A suspect’s ‘right[] to be free from excessive force [is] violated if officers choke, kick, or punch [him] when [he is] restrained, not fighting, and not resisting.’ Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 552 (8th Cir. 2017) … With Tatum on the books nearly a year earlier, Officers Beeman and Gugliano would have ‘known for certain that the[ir] conduct was unlawful’ and that, once they crossed the line identified in that case, they would no longer be ‘immune from liability’ no matter how many expletives came their way. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 152 (2017); see Shannon, 616 F.3d at 865.” Cartia v. Beeman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31211 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2024).

There was no reasonable suspicion defendant was armed just because he was slow getting out of his car and some ambiguous movements inside. United States v. Galindo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222544 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 9, 2024).*

Plaintiff was shot in the back while holding a bike lock, not a weapon. Questions of fact remain and summary judgment for the defense is inappropriate. Elena v. Jones, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31172 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.