Holding: The District Court held that fact issues precluded summary judgment on Fourth Amendment claim that officers failed to adequately attend to arrestee’s medical needs, fact issues precluded summary judgment on Monell claim, and fact issue precluded summary judgment on officers’ claim that they were entitled to discretionary qualified immunity.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that the deputy alleged use of force, in pointing his gun at arrestee and threatening to kill him if he did not surrender, was excessive, but arrestee’s right not to have a gun pointed at him under the circumstances was not clearly established.
Holding: The Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit Judge held that the police officer’s act of performing a “takedown” of arrestee was objectively unreasonable, and thus violated arrestee’s constitutional rights. However, the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee’s excessive force claim.
Holding: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that defendants Chris Abbott, Craig Jensen, Jerry Miller, and Rodger MacFarlane are entitled to qualified immunity from further suit and damages.
Holding: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the suspect sufficiently pled that sexually invasive search was unreasonable and that the right to be free from unreasonable sexually invasive search was clearly established; but visual display of suspect’s genitalia was not intended to elicit sexual response in viewer, as required for suspect to recover damages as victim of offense of child pornography.
Holding: Where a special education middle school student, who had permission to leave the classroom if he was anxious or distracted, was arrested for skipping class, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim because even though the officer lacked probable cause to arrest, there was no clearly established law at that time that would have given the officer notice that the arrest was unlawful.
Holding: The Court of Appeals Circuit Judge held that the police officer did not violate a clearly established right when he stopped the resident from engaging in religious conduct during investigation. The Court also held that the district court’s failure to recognize the resident’s alleged Frist Amendment claim was harmless, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that granting plaintiff in 1983 action would be futile.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that summary judgment in favor of non-shooting officers on qualified immunity grounds was not warranted and that summary judgment in favor of shooting officer on qualified immunity grounds was not warranted.
Holding: Although Plaintiff adequately alleged claims under Fourth Amendment for unreasonable seizure and excessive force, detaining officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that officer needed probable cause to detain plaintiff or that force used in plaintiff’s particular situation was clearly unreasonable.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that the deputies’ SWAT-style raid constituted unlawful seizure and violated the Fourth Amendment but that the deputies did not violate clearly established law regarding excessive force to execute a search warrant and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.