CA8: No QI for nearly point black shooting protestor in eye with less than lethal device

Shooting a protestor in the eye at point blank range with a “less than lethal” device that the officers are trained on and warned can actually be lethal was excessive force. No qualified immunity. Marks v. Bauer, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4252 (8th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).

Defendant’s stop for not signaling leaving a traffic circle justified the stop, and the CI’s information was reasonable suspicion to continue it. United States v. George, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444 (D. Mont. Feb. 10, 2026).*

Defense counsel gets the CI’s information because of a showing of need, but not to the client under protective order. No need shown for client to know. United States v. George, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444 (D. Mont. Feb. 10, 2026).*

Defendant had permission to drive a borrowed car for one day. Later, when he was stopped, he couldn’t show he still had permission, so he had no standing. United States v. George, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27444 (D. Mont. Feb. 10, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.