Cops Can't Use Dog on Suspect Who Ceased Fleeing

Police may be held liable for having a police dog attack a man after he had surrendered and put his hands in the air.

 

Alicea v. Thomas, 2016 BL 60723, 7th Cir., No. 15-1255, 3/1/16

     The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, if a jury believes that the man had surrendered, the police may be liable for siccing their dog on him. The court here clarifies that the police cannot assume that a surrendering suspect continues to pose a threat in order to justify using extreme force.

     The court added that "[t]he sole fact a suspect has resisted arrest before cannot justify disregarding his surrender in deciding whether and how to use force."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Alicea_v_Thomas_No_151255_2016_BL_60723_7th_Cir_Mar_01_2016_Court?1457716591

No Qualified Immunity For "Objectively Unreasonable" Tasing

Police officers will not be granted immunity for using a taser on a person who is unarmed and is not told he is under arrest, because that tasing was objectively unreasonable.

 

Kent v. Oakland County, 2016 BL 1955, 6th Cir., No. 14-2519, unpublished 1/6/16

    Deputies tased a man who was trying to stop the resuscitation of his naturally deceased father (who had previously expressed a desire that no such efforts be made). This tasing was "objectively unreasonable" and violated law that was clearly established in 2010. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the deputies are, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity and the man's civil rights claim main proceed.

    It was undisputed that the victim "was unarmed and made no evasive movements to suggest he had a weapon" before being tased. Also, he was never told that he was under arrest.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Kent_v_Oakland_County_No_142519_2016_BL_1955_6th_Cir_Jan_06_2016_?1453485740

Feds Protected By Qualified Immunity In Arrest of State Cops

Qualified immunity is granted in a civil rights lawsuit to federal agents who arrested every state cop at the scene of a fake drug raid, to then later sort out which suspects stole the "bait" items.

 

Callahan v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City, 2015 BL 376394, 10th Cir., No. 14-3717, 11/16/15

    The U.S Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted qualified immunity to the federal officers even though the arrests were made with blanket suspicion, not specific individual suspicion, that some of the group had stolen items.

    The plaintiffs cited Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a warrant to search a public bar for evidence of drug deals did not allow the officers to search all of the patrons only because of their "mere propinquity" to those already suspected. Ybarra requires particularized probable cause.

    To differentiate from Ybarra, the court looked to Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003), which upheld the detention and search of everyone in a car (not just the driver) on the reasonable conclusion that everyone in the small space was likely involved in a common criminal enterprise.

   However, the court indicated that Pringle raises more questions than it answered, and that its impact on the Ybarra analysis open for debate. Because of this ambiguity, the court concluded that the arresting officers had not violated the Ybarra standard saying, "[w]e cannot ask officers to make a legal determination-that law professors probably could not agree upon-without any guidance from the courts and then hold them liable for guessing incorrectly."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Callahan_v_Unified_Govt_of_Wyandotte_CtyKan_City_No_143171_2015_B?1450892372

Forced Departure Deemed 'Seizure' Due to Rough Handling.

When an officer roughly grabs a person, an order to depart becomes a Fourth Amendment seizure.

 

Salmon v. Blesser, 2015 BL 292438, 2d Cir., No. 14-1993-cv, 9/10/15

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that, though the use of physical force to restrain someone and control their movements may or may not be reasonable under the circumstances, it still constitutes a seizure. Circuit precedent indicates that an order to leave, by itself, is not a seizure. The precedent even indicates that if the person is escorted by an officer as they leave, gives gentle physical guidance, or bars reentry, it is not a seizure.

    However, in this lawsuit the officer grabbed the plaintiff by the collar and twisted his arm behind his back. The court ruled that this was "intentionally restraining and controlling" the plaintiff's movements, and was elevated to the level of a Fourth Amendment seizure.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Salmon_v_Blesser_No_141993cv_2015_BL_292438_2d_Cir_Sept_10_2015_C