Defendant\u2019s new issue of lack of consent wasn\u2019t presented before the USMJ, so it can\u2019t be raised in the objections. United States v. Allen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57604 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHunt has not shown that Glenn violated a clearly established right either when he grabbed Hunt after Hunt refused to get out of the road, or when he took Hunt to the ground after Hunt resisted arrest. Hunt asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner establishes that right. But Garner concerned \u2018the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon,\u2019 \u2026; its facts are too divergent from those in this case for it to be instructive. Glenn is thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.\u201d Hunt v. City of Boulder City<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10343 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).* Defendant\u2019s new issue of lack of consent wasn\u2019t presented before the USMJ, so it can\u2019t be raised in the objections. United States v. Allen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57604 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2020). \u201cHunt has not shown that Glenn … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"