CA7: Even if police potentially escalated the situation, ptf’s use of a gun justified deadly force

Even if the officers failed to properly announce themselves and even if the defendants’ actions exacerbated the possibility of a dangerous confrontation, Ancheta’s action, the use of his gun, was an intervening cause of the deadly force. The defendants escalated the force that they applied in response to the force with which he resisted. The situation requiring them to use deadly force was not primarily of their own making. Plaintiff’s argument that for the first time, there was a fact question over who fired the first shot was waived because Ancheta did not raise it below. Ancheta v. Jones, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1280 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).*

Defendant’s second motion to suppress is filed too late. So it could be taken out of time, it needed to show need and prejudice. Need might be there, but it’s not addressed, and the statement of what would be shown is conclusory and tells the court nothing about the merits. Essentially just that defense counsel needs to file it. United States v. Stevenson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10088 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2025).*

Police responded to a home invasion call. Defendant lived there and consented to a search of his backpack. That produced a firearm without a serial number, and that led to a search warrant for his place. That warrant was issued on probable cause. United States v. Perez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9862 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Excessive force, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.