<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAt the summary judgment stage, in deciding the issue of qualified immunity, our jurisprudence requires that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to Baskin. Therefore, for summary judgment purposes, we must accept as true the sworn deposition testimony of Baskin and the independent eyewitness, who both stated that Baskin’s hands were above his head, in an act of surrender, when Detective Martinez fired the shot. Under that scenario, a police officer would not have had an objectively reasonable basis to use deadly force. The law prohibiting the use of deadly force against a non-threatening and surrendering suspect was clearly established, as evidenced by cases in jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. Thus, Detective Martinez was not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment. [\u00b6] The disputed issues of material fact — whether Detective Mart\u00ednez’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable — are for a jury to resolve, not for a court. Accordingly, we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\u201d Baskin v. Martinez<\/a>, 2020 N.J. LEXIS 803 (July 9, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cAt the summary judgment stage, in deciding the issue of qualified immunity, our jurisprudence requires that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to Baskin. Therefore, for summary judgment purposes, we must accept as true the sworn deposition … Continue reading