The defendants observed plaintiff\u2019s actions and they saw probable cause to believe he committed trespass. Therefore, the false arrest claim fails. His excessive force claim, however, survives summary judgment. Using the criminal trial testimony wasn\u2019t particularly helpful or controlling because the incentive to litigate was different there. The minutiae of the excessive force claim wouldn\u2019t come out there. Baysa v. Gualtieri, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27914 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019).*<\/p>\n
There were genuine issues on the question of reasonableness of the officer\u2019s actions, and qualified immunity is denied. One issue is whether the officer\u2019s entry through the door was unreasonable or he thought he was in a common area of the house. That’s presently for a jury. Richards v. City of Jackson<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27906 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019).* See techdirt: Appeals Court Takes Immunity Away From Cop Who Entered A House Without A Warrant And Killed The Family Dog<\/a> by Tim Cushing<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The defendants observed plaintiff\u2019s actions and they saw probable cause to believe he committed trespass. Therefore, the false arrest claim fails. His excessive force claim, however, survives summary judgment. Using the criminal trial testimony wasn\u2019t particularly helpful or controlling because … Continue reading