Case Law Flashcards
According to the 5th Circuit Court appeals, this case on deadly force are clear; “an officer cannot use deadly force without an immediate threat to himself or others.” PC 9.51
Estate of Ceballos v Bridgewater, Porras and Mull
“¼ police officers performing a discretionary function enjoy an immunity that shields them from liability for civil damages unless: (1) the officers’ conduct violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct, such that (3) an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the conduct violated that right. “
Milstead v Kibler
“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known. A defendant official must affirmatively plead the defense of qualified immunity.”
Okonkwo v Fernandez
Primary Holding - During a high-speed police chase, Brower died when he crashed a stolen car into an 18-wheel truck parked across a roadway by the police as a roadblock. Police allegedly parked the truck behind a curve with a police cruiser’s headlights aimed so as to blind him on his approach. The use of a roadblock by the police to stop Brower’s car constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Brower v Inyo County
Established a 2-step approach to civil lawsuits. 1. Qualified Immunity. 2. Did the alleged conduct violate a constitutional right? Inquiries for qualified immunity and excessive force remained distinct.
Saucier v Katz
Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from suit as well as liability for civil damages, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.
Osabutey v. Welch
“objective legal reasonableness” - A federal law enforcement officer who participates in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment may not be held personally liable for money damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment.
Anderson v. Creighton
Qualified immunity applies to presidential aides regarding their official actions, and it can be penetrated only when they have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the 4th Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.“
(Shooting a fleeing felon is a seizure…justifiable only if “reasonable” has to be felony + immediate threat / significant threat of death or SBI to public if left at large) (shooting all fleeing felons is constitutionally unreasonable) Totality of circumstances
Tennessee v. Garner
This important court case gave us a three-pronged test which the courts now use to determine if force used by a police officer is reasonable. The three prongs are as follows:
1) What is the severity of the crime at hand?
2) Is the suspect resisting or attempting to flee?
3) Does the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others?
The court held in this case that the “reasonableness”of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
It also reinforced, the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one:
The question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
The court further held that a police officer’s use of force constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment.
“seizure” of his person. a diabetic having an insulin reaction, was mistakenly believed to be intoxicated by Charlotte, North Carolina police officers.
Graham v. Connor (Use of Force)
Officer Lowery acted in self defense when he fired a fatal shot at Fraire. Under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable police officer could have believed that in firing he was not violating Fraire’s constitutional right to be free of excessive force. Consequently, Lowery is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for his actions in defending his life. In addition, the Plaintiffs failed to plead with sufficient particularity the facts and allegations necessary to present a claim against the City of Arlington under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Neither did the Plaintiffs proffer summary judgment evidence that Arlington’s deadly force policy condones the unjustifiable and unnecessary use of deadly force.
Fraire v. City of Arlington (Use of Force)
Deadly force to prevent escape ruled excessive. Suspect was running for the sally port door. the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply after the initial arrest, citing three (3) reasons: 1. the text of the Fourth Amendment – prohibiting unreasonable “seizures” – does not support its application to a post-arrest encounter. 2. the Supreme Court has refused to apply the Fourth Amendment to protect inmates after incarceration. 3. Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 n.10 and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (refusing to concede that Fourth Amendment applied to pretrial detainee subjected to body cavity search), dictate that the Due Process Clause is the appropriate constitutional basis for pretrial detainee excessive force suits.
Brother v. Klevenhagen (Use of Force)
Holding that the plaintiff must offer “evidence of some tangible attempt to contract” during the time she was banned from a store that “could give rise to a contractual duty between her and the merchant . . . which was in some way thwarted.”
Morris v. Dillard Dept. Store
Can’t use pepper spray after tasering someone.
Jackson v. City of Schertz (Taser)
Negligence excessive force alleged intentional tort
City of Waco v. Williams (Taser)
