Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Use of Deadly Force-- Part Two. Qualified Immunity and Inadequate Training, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
     A trial court's denial of summary judgment to a police officer in an excessive force lawsuit was not the same as a denial of qualified immunity, when the trial judge explicitly said that there was not enough information about the force used to make a qualified immunity determination. The denial of summary judgment, therefore, was not immediately appealable, as a denial of qualified immunity would have been. Watts v. Harrison, No. 07-7008, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11319 (Unpub. D.C. Cir.).
     The question of whether a city, city officials, and police officials acted with malice was not relevant to the issue as to whether individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on claims arising out of a woman's arrest and prosecution. A court's examination of the entitlement to qualified immunity is limited to objective facts concerning whether or not there was probable cause. In this case, qualified immunity was proper because there was "at least arguable" probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims, however, were sufficient to defeat summary judgment for the city itself. The plaintiff claimed that the police had a policy of "reflexively crediting" reports from neighbors with whom she had a long standing conflict, creating a foreseeable risk of an arrest not based on probable cause. Hilchey v. City of Haverhill, No. 05-10152, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18515 (D. Mass.).
     Police were entitled to qualified immunity for requiring a father to remain at a family home while his wife took a small child, discovered not to be breathing, to the hospital. They allegedly told him that he could not leave until investigators interviewed him as part of the investigation. The child subsequently died. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that an officer involved in a child death investigation acted unreasonably in taking these actions. The court ruled that, even if the investigation had essentially developed into a "de facto" arrest of the father, an officer could still believe that it was investigative. If a mistake was made, it was a reasonable one. Seymour v. City of Des Moines, No. 06-3842, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6138 (8th Cir.).
     Union activists conducting an allegedly peaceful protest in downtown Miami, Florida claimed that officers from a county sheriff's office had detained them without probable cause while being supervised by the local police chief and police department. The police chief, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity for claims against him based on his role as a supervisor. The plaintiffs claimed that he failed to adequately train the officers, and that a report established that he had notice of prior "widespread" unjustified arrests by police during public protests. The court stated that it found no prior case law establishing that a police chief, based on alleged past unjustified arrests by his officers, had an obligation to conduct training for "borrowed" officers concerning when to make arrests. Battiste v. Sheriff of Broward County, No. 06-14958, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 339 (11th Cir.).
     Deputy sheriffs were not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging that they used excessive force in removing a morbidly obese man from a courtroom after he was found in contempt of court, causing him to die after several deputies allegedly placed themselves on his back while he was on the floor. Hostility by the deputies to the man could support a finding that they were trying to punish him at the time. Both Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims were reinstated. Appeals court also rules that removal of the decedent's mother to another courtroom via wheelchair was necessary and did not involve the use of excessive force. Richman v. Sheahan, No. 07-1487, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 200 (7th Cir.).
     The defense of qualified immunity available to officers in federal civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 does not apply to claims arising out of the same incident asserted in a California state law civil rights lawsuit filed under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 52.1 for interference with statutory or constitutional rights. The case involved claims that deputies acted improperly in connection with the plaintiffs' detention, the search and seizure of their car, and the subsequent search of their home. While the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim because certain actions, even if unlawful, were "reasonable mistakes," an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply as to the California state civil rights claim, requiring further proceedings. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, No. B186764, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1267 (Cal. App.).
     Operators of daycare center failed to show that an investigator violated their due process rights during an investigation of their facility for alleged licensing violations. The evidence only showed that an investigation was begun in response to a complaint from a disgruntled former employee, that the investigator made statements to the plaintiffs and reported violations of child care regulations to an agency, some of which may have been inaccurate, and that allegations concerning the accusation were described in notices sent to the plaintiffs, which may have been available to the public. Ultimately, the investigation was dropped, and the allegations against the facility were withdrawn. These facts did not allege conduct that "shocks the conscience" in violation of due process. The investigator was entitled to qualified immunity, as no constitutional violation occurred. Ward v. Anderson, No. 06-8014, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17531(10th Cir.).
     An investigator was entitled to qualified immunity in a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that his actions had caused the plaintiff to suffer a wrongful murder conviction and placement on death row for 14 years. The court found that the undisputed facts showed that his acts were at most negligent, and not intentional or reckless, and there was no evidence that he purposefully tried to suppress exculpatory evidence. Clemmons v. Armontrout, No. 05-4140, 06-1099, 477 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2007)
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting a man who stood in the doorway of his residence and declined to consent to their entry. The officers then had a search warrant for another person but did not have a reasonable belief that the person named in the search warrant was present inside the home. Villegas v. Hackett, No. 05-55311, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6945 (9th Cir.).
     Questions concerning whether or not a man having a seizure in his home was conscious and whether or not he acted aggressively towards officers who came there to assist him and wound up handcuffing him required further proceedings in trial court, as the appeals court could not decide an issue of qualified immunity based on such disputed facts. McKenna v. City of Royal Oak, No. 05-2650, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29191 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
     While an arrestee stated a valid claim for unlawful retaliation by alleging that an officer seized his camera in response to his exercise of his First Amendment rights by filing a lawsuit against police, the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity because the right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the incident. Skoog v. County of Clackamas, No. 04-35087, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28683 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court could not proceed with appeal of denial of qualified immunity to university police officer sued for the shooting death of a student because there were outstanding factual disputes concerning the circumstances of the shooting.  McKinney v. Duplain, No. 05-3812, 463 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     While a plaintiff in a federal civil rights lawsuit does not have a burden of specifically showing the violation of a clearly established law in their complaint to avoid dismissal on the basis of a qualified immunity defense, when the complaint, despite being adequate to give notice of the plaintiff's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, does not provide the necessary facts for a determination of the validity of a qualified immunity defense, the trial court should grant a motion by the defendants requiring that the plaintiff submit a more specific statement concerning the facts of the case. Thomas v. Independence Township, No. 05-2275, 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     In lawsuit brought by man who spent 22 years on death row for a kidnapping, rape, and murder he was subsequently cleared of, detectives were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they acted in bad faith in essentially destroying exculpatory DNA evidence. Prosecutors in the case were not entitled to absolute immunity on similar claims that they destroyed exculpatory evidence. Yarris v. County of Delaware, No. 05-1319, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Dec]
     Even if trial judge's submission of qualified immunity issue to the jury in federal civil rights lawsuit over deputy sheriff's alleged use of excessive force was in error, reversal of the jury's finding that he was entitled to that defense did not require reversal by a federal appeals court. The record showed that the parties to the lawsuit and the court were careful in submitting the issues to the jury, and the plaintiff arrestee, at the time, had not objected to the jury deciding the question. Helsabeck v. Faryanic, No. 04-2244, 173 Fed. Appx. 251 (4th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Police officers, in allegedly assisting the title holder of a boat in repossessing it from a contract purchaser, were not sufficiently involved in the incident to make the repossession governmental action supporting a claim for deprivation of property without due process of law. Additionally, even if they were found to have been sufficiently involved to make the repossession governmental action, it was not clearly established that their actions would violate the plaintiff's rights, entitling them to qualified immunity. Moore v. Carpenter, No. 04-3144, 404 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for ordering a man to leave a trailer park in which he was occupying an apartment when the man's father, displaying a deed showing that he owned the property, stated that he did not want his son to be there, and the son did not produce any lease or other evidence of his right to remain on the premises. Higgins v. Penobscot County, No. 05-2375, 446 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Jul]
     Police detective who mistakenly, but reasonably, entered the wrong college dorm room while executing a search warrant during a drug raid was entitled to qualified immunity in student's lawsuit asserting federal and Maryland state claims for unreasonable search and seizure, unreasonable detention, and excessive use of force. Mazuz v. State of MD, No. 05-1463, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7660 (4th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
     Officers who placed an airline employee under "arrest" and handcuffed her at the airport as part of a "prank" to celebrate the end of her probationary period, at the request of her supervisors, were not entitled to qualified immunity on her federal civil rights claims. If she truly and reasonably believed the "arrest" was real, their actions violated clearly established law against detaining a person without legal justification. Federal appeals court declines defendant officers' invitation to adopt a "prank" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 04-2117, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5108 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that he sprayed pepper spray in his face while he was lying on the ground with both hands cuffed and another officer on top of him. Such use of force, after the arrestee had been subdued, if true, could not be said to be objectively reasonable as a matter of law. Henderson v. Munn, No. 05-1403, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5010 (8th Cir. February 28, 2006). [2006 LR Apr]
     State police officers who arrested a protestor at a construction site for disorderly conduct when a truck attempting to enter the site was surrounded on all sides by protestors and their children were entitled to qualified immunity from his false arrest and malicious prosecution lawsuit. In setting aside a jury's award of $80,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages, the trial judge found that it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that there was no probable cause for the arrest under these circumstances. Zellner v. Summerlin, No. 02CV95, 399 F. Supp. 2d 154 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     While a search of a business, under a search warrant, to search for documents concerning ownership of computers, which were not evidence of crime, violated the rights of the business owners, officers who obtained and executed the warrant were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. They consulted with a prosecutor who told them to go ahead and reviewed the affidavit and warrant, and a judge issued the warrant. Under these circumstances, their actions were reasonable, even if mistaken. Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, No. 04-2192, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 251 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     Investigator was entitled to qualified immunity on claims that he obtained arrest warrants for elementary school teacher which were not based on probable cause. Warrant was supported by probable cause based on statements by student that the teacher attacked and choked her, together with documented evidence of injuries. McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Dep't, No. 05-6423, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 27091 (4th Cir. December 12, 2005). [2006 LR Feb]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that they used excessive force by using pepper spray against him and hitting him repeatedly with a baton while he was seated in his truck after a traffic stop. Arrestee claimed that he had not resisted the officers or tried to flee, and that he was "passive" and cooperative. Reed v. City of Lavonia, No. 3:03-CV-111, 390 F. Supp. 2d. 1347 (M.D. Ga. 2005). [N/R]
     Commander of a local law enforcement drug unit was entitled to qualified immunity from excessive force claims asserted by an arrestee when there was no evidence showing that he personally participated in any alleged unlawful conduct or created any rule or custom that led to such conduct. Jones v. Pandey, No. 1:04-CV-99, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (M.D. Ga. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer had qualified immunity from liability in false arrest lawsuit brought by restaurant employee charged with being an accomplice in the armed robbery of the restaurant. While the employee claimed that he merely accompanied the robbers into the restaurant after encountering them in the parking lot, an objectively reasonable officer could believe, under the circumstances, that the employee was acting in concert with the robbers. Sheppard v. Aloisi, No. CIV.A.03-10240, 384 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
     Because city policy possibly allowed the use of dogs to catch and bite suspects without verbal warnings, summary judgment was improper in excessive force lawsuit brought by homeless man bitten by dog while lying on the floor in a shelter for public toilets. Officer controlling dog, however, was entitled to qualified immunity. Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, No. 04-2538, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26152 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
     Campus police officer who arrested "campus-evangelist" for disorderly conduct for making rude and confrontational speech to student crowd calling them "fornicators," "whores," and drunken "little devils" was entitled to qualified immunity even if the speech was possibly protected by the First Amendment. Given the manner of the speech and the crowd's reaction, a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause for an arrest. Gilles v. Davis, No. 04-2542, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 23001 (3d Cir.). [2005 LR Dec]
     While city was not entitled to statutory immunity from liability under Minnesota dog-bite statute for injuries arrestee suffered when bitten by police dog, since dog-bite liability statute did apply to a municipality which owned the dog, the officer's decision to release the dog in order to make the arrest was discretionary, entitling the officer and city to official immunity. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, No. A03-1707, 700 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. App. 2005). [N/R]
     Sheriff and two of his deputies were properly denied qualified immunity for allegedly carrying out a campaign of harassment and retaliation, including surveillance of homes and business, accessing of confidential government information, issuance of false traffic citations, and the seeking of an arrest warrant on "trumped-up" environmental charges against two businessmen in retaliation for their support of a ballot referendum that would have reduced the powers of the sheriff's department. Bennett v. Hendrix, #04-12256, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19466 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     Police captain who led "sting" operation in which persons with outstanding arrest warrants were invited to a phony "job fair" to be arrested was entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by woman mistakenly arrested there who merely drove her boyfriend to the event and who had no criminal record or outstanding warrant. Wilson v. City of Boston, No. 04-1310, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18847 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Officers who allegedly knocked and announced their presence "simultaneously" with breaching the door to a residence to execute a search warrant were not entitled to qualified immunity in homeowner's lawsuit. Michalik v. Hermann , No. 03-30780, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17529 (5th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Parole agents who allegedly entered a home where a parolee resided in a rented room, without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their identity and purpose, were not entitled to qualified immunity. If the facts were as the plaintiff homeowner and his girlfriend claimed, the entry in this manner was an invasion of their privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Green v. Butler, No. 04-2993, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18141 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing a suspect in a drug transaction investigation who was slowly moving a vehicle towards him, which threatened to crush him into another car. Robinson v. Arrugueta, No. 04-10856, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13456 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Police officer who tackled suspect he observed in a physical confrontation with another officer who had called for backup was entitled to qualified immunity for tackling the suspect, when no clearly established case law at the time put him on fair notice that such action was unlawful, if, indeed, it was. Lyons v. City of Xenia, No. 03-3282, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 16034 (6th Cir. August 04, 2005). [2005 LR Sep]
     Woman who claimed she was improperly arrested for obstruction of justice without probable cause was entitled to a new trial after trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the legal issue of whether the arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Willingham v. Crooke, No. 04-1548, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 12129 (4th Cir.). [2005 LR Aug]
     Jury's finding that officer used excessive force resulting in broken wrist for drunk driving arrestee, and its finding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity was not inconsistent, since it could have believed that the officer's use of force was excessive, but that he reasonably believed his conduct to be lawful under the circumstances. Kent v. Katz, No. 04-0880, 125 Fed. Appx. 334 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     A parole officer was entitled to qualified immunity for deciding to arrest a parolee for a "technical" parole violation (working outside the state and possessing a cell phone) under a warrant, even though he knew that an intermediate state appeals court had granted the parolee a new trial, when he was unaware that the state's appeal to the state Supreme Court had been denied, or that the charges against the parolee had subsequently been dropped. Donaldson v. Mugavero, No. 04-1648, 126 Fed. Appx. 63 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer who shot unarmed burglar allegedly obeying his order to exit a cabinet in which he had been hiding was not entitled to qualified immunity if the facts were as the plaintiff claimed--that he had not attempted to reach his hand into his pocket. Sample v. Bailey, No. 04-4174, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8328 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Jul]
     Police officer who allegedly failed to order that arrestee be taken to the hospital when she was exhibiting symptoms of a heart attack was not entitled to qualified immunity in her estate's wrongful death lawsuit. If these actions occurred in this manner, they violated her clearly established constitutional right to receive necessary medical attention. Carter v. City of Detroit, No. 04-1005 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9717 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Jul]
     Police officer who allegedly intentionally aimed and shot "less lethal projectile" at the head of a "non-threatening" suspect with suicidal tendencies was not entitled to qualified immunity in federal civil rights lawsuit. Mercado v. City of Orlando, No. 04-13477, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jul]
     Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review a denial of qualified immunity when the defendant police officer made assertions on appeal which challenged the trial court's factual findings in a lawsuit concerning his shooting of an arrestee, and whether the shooting was accidental or intentional. Henry v. Purnell, No. 04-1810, 119 Fed. Appx. 441 (4th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Arresting officers who had at least arguable probable cause to believe that the suspect was one of the robbers they saw committing a crime and attempting to escape were entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest and false imprisonment claims. Wray v. City of New York, No. 01-CV-04837, 340 F. Supp. 2d 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest claims asserted by wife and daughter they arrested for obstructing legal process after they allegedly screamed at the officers and attempted to intervene as the officers allegedly physically assaulted their husband and father. Facts alleged made it at least arguable that the actions of the arrestees constituted such obstruction. Demster v. City of Lenexa, No. 04-2420, 352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting juvenile murder victim's brother for her killing based on the facts, which included the murder victim being found dead in her clothes and none of the other members of the household hearing the victim scream, suggesting that she knew her attacker, and inconsistencies in the arrestee's statement. Crowe v. County of San Diego, No. 99CV0241, 359 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claims arising out of the amount of force they used in arresting a man during a civil disturbance, including allegedly using a takedown technique that was "too aggressive," when he refused to leave the area after being told several times to do so, and he resisted arrest, subsequently being convicted of resisting. Under the circumstances, it would not be clear to a reasonable officer that their conduct violated the arrestee's rights. Rosenberger v. Kootenai County Sheriff's Department, No. 29777, 103 P.3d 466 (Idaho 2004). [N/R]
     Officer had probable cause for arrest of suspect and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity when he conducted an objectively reasonable investigation, including asking the crime victim to personally identify the arrestee as the person who had purportedly threatened him with death. Alhofen v. Monteilh, No. 03-16960, 118 Fed. Appx. 170 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Undercover policewoman posing as a prostitute was not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man for patronizing a prostitute when there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they discussed sex and whether the arrestee had offered to pay money for sex, as well as whether she had made knowingly false statements in order to initiate a criminal proceeding against him. Brockington v. City of Philadelphia, No. Civ.A.03-5014, 354 F. Supp. 2d 563 (E.Pa. 2005). [N/R]
     Incidental damage to a house resulting from deputies' entry to execute a search warrant, and accidental injuries suffered by a resident at the moment of entry were not violations of the Fourth Amendment. Appeals court also rules that the alleged actions of the deputies in detaining the residents in a living room for a period of time between two and three hours was not unreasonable, nor did it become unreasonable because the deputies allegedly, at some point during that time period, refused to allow access to the bathroom and/or denied one resident's request to take medicine. Steele v. County of Los Angeles, No. 01-57183, 117 Fed. Appx. 507 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Defendant mayor and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit in which political opponent of mayor claimed both attacked him while he was driving a sound truck for an opposition party. Summary judgment was not granted on the basis of widely different factual accounts of what actually happened. Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. Ortiz-Velez, No. 03-2123 391 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2004) [2005 LR Apr]
     While the officers' alleged conduct in staying in a home searched under a warrant for 7-1/4 hours, while keeping all residents in handcuffs for several hours in their underwear appeared to be unreasonable under a prior appeals court decision, Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2000), the search in question took place over two years before the Leveto decision, so that the officers did not violate clearly established law and were entitled to qualified immunity. Kerusenko v. New Jersey, #03-3556, 115 Fed. Appx. 583 (3rd Cir. 2004). Editor's Note: In Leveto, the court ruled that an 8-hour search carried out as part of an investigation for tax evasion where the plaintiff was detained at his place of business, restricted in his communication with others during the search, and interrogated during a period of six hours, was unreasonable and amounted to a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. [N/R]
     Issuing summonses to appear in court to a motorist who refused to provide information at the scene of an accident concerning his auto insurance status did not violate his Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights, and individual defendants in his federal civil rights lawsuit were entitled to qualified immunity. Burrell v. Virginia, No. 02-2347, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1329 (4th Cir.). [2005 LR Mar]
     As of December of 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer could not reasonably believe that it was constitutional to "take down" or physically assault an arrestee who was not actively resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or posing a threat to others, and that other officers present had a duty to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by a fellow officer. Defendant officers were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity from arrestee's excessive force claims. Hays v. Ellis, #CIV.A.01-K-2316, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D. Colo. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that he struck him in the eye while he was surrendering by laying on the ground after ending a chase. The officer's alleged conduct of striking an unarmed suspect about the face after he voluntarily surrendered, if true, was objectively unreasonable. Dubay v. Craze, No. 03-71553, 327 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Deputy acted in an objectively reasonable manner in putting his foot on an arrestee's face when he raised his head as he lay on the ground being handcuffed after disobeying orders to immediately drop his shotgun. The arrestee was "not docile," and subsequently was found to possess another gun on his person. Crosby v. Monroe County, No. 03-13716, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26973 (11th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Feb]
     Prosecutors who approved allegedly facially invalid post-indictment search warrant of indictee's property were not entitled to absolute immunity from liability to the extent that the warrant sought to obtain evidence of crimes not charged in the indictment, but were entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the warrant was aimed at obtaining evidence to prosecute the pending charges. District attorney was entitled to qualified immunity, however, on approval of allegedly overbroad search warrant, because it was not so lacking in indications of probable cause as to make a belief in probable cause unreasonable. KRL v. Moore, No. 02-15296, 384 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Detective who arrested suspect for alleged drug trafficking was entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when a reasonable officer could have found probable cause for the arrest based on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia, including a drug scale, found in a bedroom believed to be the suspect's. Further, the arrestee was subsequently released, with the charges against him dropped, when exonerating evidence was presented. Devatt v. Lohenitz, No. Civ.A.03-CV-5558, 338 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D.Pa. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer who arrested, under warrant, the owner of legally registered firearms and ammunition on suspicion of uttering "threats" was not entitled to qualified immunity. The arrestee's "occasional bellicose" statements in the presence of police were insufficient to support a reasonable belief that there was probable cause to arrest him for any crime. The arrest, however, did not violate the Second Amendment. Court finds that there is no federal civil rights claim based on "a right to own firearms unrelated to the maintenance of a militia." Walczyk v. Rio, No. 3:02CV1536, 339 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity in case where a mass arrest was allegedly made of a group of demonstrators in a park despite the fact that no dispersal order had been given. Even if he was unaware of the absence of a dispersal order, his approval of the arrests was not objectively reasonable in the alleged absence of any investigation by him of the justification for the arrest. Federal trial court states that when a group gathered in a public place contains persons who have not been obstructive or violent, a mass arrest is improper in the absence of a fair warning or notice and the opportunity to comply with an order to disperse. Barham v. Ramsey, No. Civ.A. 02-2283, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting fifteen-year-old's father for allegedly furnishing him with a controlled substance. Officer's consultation with local prosecutor prior to making the arrest was one factor to be considered in that determination. Cox v. Hainey, No. 04-1761, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24766 (1st Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
     Federal appeals court upholds qualified immunity for police officer who broke motorist's arm in the process of arresting her for intoxicated driving. While trial judge erroneously submitted the qualified immunity issue to the jury, the motorist failed to object or submit alternative instructions, and the submission was not the kind of "plain error" that threatened the fairness or integrity or public reputation of the judicial process. Littrell v. Franklin, No. 03-2534, 388 F.3d 578 (8th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for police dog's biting of woman who insisted on remaining in the middle of a volatile situation when police and the dog entered her house to arrest her son. Dunigan v. Noble, No. 03-1304, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24647 (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
     U.S. Supreme Court: a warrantless arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the officer, based on the facts known to him, has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The crime justifying the arrest need not necessarily be "closely related" to the offense actually cited as the reason for the arrest. Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710, 2004 U.S. Lexis 8272. [2005 LR Jan]
     Officer who shot fleeing felon motorist in the back was entitled to qualified immunity, U.S. Supreme Court holds, when prior caselaw did not clearly establish that her conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Brosseau v. Haugen, No. 03-1261, 2004 U.S. Lexis 8275. [2005 LR Jan]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing a husband struggling on the floor with another officer summoned to the home because of a domestic dispute. Parks v. Pomeroy, No. 03-2043 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23262 (8th Cir.2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Officer violated arrestee's First Amendment rights by arresting him for disorderly conduct for yelling obscenities at a Canadian flag being carried in parade for the purposes of expressing his political opinion about the Canadian government's lack of support for U.S. military actions in Iraq. Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as the arrestee's comments did not constitute "fighting words," and a reasonable officer would have known that there was no probable cause for an arrest. Levine v. Clement, No. CIV. A. 03-30206-KPN, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a motorist for tape recording a traffic stop without consent, which was not a crime under applicable state law, based on the existence of arguable probable cause to arrest him for crimes "not closely related" to the charged offense. Alford v. Haner, #01-35141, 333 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Devenpeck v. Alford, #03-710, 124 S. Ct. 2014 (2004). [2004 LR Nov]
     Jury's finding that a police officer used excessive force in breaking a motorist's wrist during an arrest for intoxicated driving was not inconsistent with its finding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from damages for the use of such force. The jury could, from the evidence, decide that the officer reasonably believed that he was justified in using the level of force he employed, while he was not actually justified, in fact, in doing so. Kent v. Katz, 327 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Vt. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer who shot and killed suicidal man who attempted to stand in front of moving traffic on a highway, told him that "I am Jesus Christ [...] I am going to die and so are you!" and then attacked him, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as he acted in reasonable self defense. Kesinger v. Conner, No. 03-13883, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18160 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Throwing a "flash-bang" device "blind" into an apartment which officers believed might have one armed robbery suspect and up to eight other people sleeping there who were not involved in the robbery was an excessive use of force when it was done without a warning or the consideration of alternatives, federal appeals court rules. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability, however, as the law on the subject was not clearly established at the time. Boyd v. Benton County, #02-35776, 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Officers who had reason to believe that juveniles were drinking alcohol at a party inside a home could have believed that they had exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into the residence, based on the threat to public safety if the juveniles subsequently left the home in cars under the influence of alcohol. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Radloff v. Oelwein, No. 03-3493, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17016 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Parole officers had no right to make a warrantless search of a woman's house to look for a parole violator who did not actually live there. Because they reasonably believed, however, on the basis of mistaken information furnished to them, that the house was the parolee's residence, they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability, since they had the right to search a parolee's home without probable cause or a warrant, and they left as soon as they determined that this was not the parolee's home. Moore v. Vega, #02-9209, 371 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Arresting officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from arrestee's claim that they used excessive force in insisting on handcuffing her with her hands behind her back despite the fact that she was unarmed, was not resisting arrest and had allegedly informed them that she had a disability stemming from having undergone shoulder fusion preventing her from placing her hands behind her back to be handcuffed. The arrest was for loitering for purposes of prostitution. Court finds that reasonable officers should have known that it was unreasonable to proceed with forcibly handcuffing her under these circumstances without further inquiry into her disabling condition. Rex v. City of Milwaukee, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D. Wis. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court, in case where estranged husband took and murdered his three minor daughters, in violation of domestic protection order, rules that such an order, when enforcement is required by a state statute, creates a property interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Claims against city for failing to enforce order are reinstated, but individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Gonzales v. Castle Rock, #01-1053, 366 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. en banc, 2004). [2004 LR Sep]
     County was entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit by elderly woman claiming that members of multi-agency task force improperly entered and searched her home looking for suspect who no longer lived there, when no county policy or custom caused the actions. Individual deputies involved in obtaining the address to go to or who accompanied team members on the search, were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate plaintiff's rights. Johnson v. Deep East Texas Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, No. 03-40394, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15493 (5th Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a motorist for refusal to obey orders to exit his vehicle to sign a speeding citation and for arresting his brother, a passenger, for interference with the officers in repeatedly advising the driver not to obey them. Use of pepper spray was also justified when vehicle occupants, in response to officer reaching his hand inside the vehicle, began to roll the window up on his arm. Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, No. 03-1032, 361 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Ex-mayor's verbal threat to ex-dogcatcher to "get you," yelled out a car window as he drove by, did not provide probable cause to arrest him for assault because there was no threatening gesture and no threat of imminent harm. Officer who consulted with prosecutor before making an arrest was entitled to qualified immunity, but prosecutor was not, since no reasonable prosecutor could have believed there were grounds for an arrest. Kijonka v. Seitzinger, #03-3158, 363 F. 3d 645 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Law enforcement officers who are accused, in lawsuit, of purposefully eliciting false testimony to frame three men for murder, and then participating in a cover-up to protect themselves and the real killers, one of whom was being "groomed" as an informer, were not entitled to qualified immunity. Such behavior, if true, violated clearly established law, even as long ago as 1967. Limone v. Condon, No. 03-2130, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11577 (1st Cir.). [2004 LR Jul]
     Federal appeals court finds that trial judge, in granting qualified immunity to deputy on dentist's claim that he was arrested without probable cause, and wrongfully subjected to handcuffing so tight that the injuries required him to leave his profession, improperly acted "as a jury" in choosing to believe deputy's version of the incident rather than the plaintiff's. Court also finds that it is "well-established" law that overly tight handcuffing can constitute excessive force. Wall v. County of Orange, #02-56032, 364 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Jul]
     Police officer whose vehicle collided with another motorist after allegedly running a red light while responding to a domestic disturbance call was not entitled to summary judgment from liability on the basis of qualified immunity in claim for damages. Officer's action, if as described by plaintiff, could constitute deliberate indifference to the possibility of harm coming to other drivers and their passengers. Two to one majority of appeals court panel finds that "deliberate indifference" rather than "intent to harm" was sufficient to impose liability under the circumstances, if officer had time to deliberate between alternatives. Terrell v. Larson, #03-1293 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11417 (8th Cir.). [2004 LR Jul]
      Police officers who allegedly continued to search apartment even after they had verified that the parties sought were not there were not entitled to qualified immunity, as their claimed actions, if true, would violate the Fourth Amendment. Peterson v. Jensen, No. 02-4243, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11242 (10th Cir.). [2004 LR Jul]
     Police officer who arrested suspect on the basis of a warrant for breach of the peace issued by a judge was entitled to qualified immunity. Issuance of warrant supported a presumption that the arrest was supported by probable cause, and there was no showing that the officer in any way misled the judge in order to obtain the warrant. Abramowitz v. Romano, 303 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Deputy sheriffs were entitled to qualified immunity for examining ex-husband's personal property as he was packing to leave the home after they served him with a temporary order of protection obtained by his ex-wife. They acted objectively reasonably in seeking to make sure that he was not concealing a weapon or some other "instrumentality" that could have presented a danger to persons present. Rosen v. County of Suffolk, N.Y., 305 F. Supp. 2d 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal of denial of qualified immunity to officers who shot man with a history of mental illness who they shot several times after responding to his 911 call. Trial court found that there were genuine contested issues of material fact, and appeals could not review that finding. Goffney v. Carr, #03-20072, 78 Fed. Appx. 974 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest lawsuit by hotel employee arrested for burglary of hotel rooms. The arrestee had worked at the hotel during the hours when the burglaries occurred, a credit card stolen from the rooms was used at a store near the employees home, and the arrestee owned a black down jacket similar to the one worn by the suspect in a store surveillance tape. Under the circumstances, reasonably competent officers could disagree as to whether there was probable cause to make an arrest. Colon v. Ludemann, 283 F. Supp. 2d 747 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Police officers could reasonably have believed that their safety was in danger even if the plaintiff's version of the incident were believed--i.e., that he turned and faced an officer with his gun in his hand down by his side. Officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity for their shooting plaintiff several times. Cunningham v. Hamilton, #03-1639, 84 Fed. Appx. 357 (4th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Police department forensic chemist could be sued for malicious prosecution for allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence and fabricating inculpatory evidence, even if she did not initiate the prosecution or make the decision to continue it. She was not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by man who spent fifteen years in prison for a rape that DNA evidence now shows he did not commit. Pierce v. Gilchrist, No. 02-6241, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     U.S. Supreme Court finds that a search warrant which failed to describe the items to be seized during the search of a Montana ranch was "presumptively invalid," and that a federal agent who applied for the warrant and then led the raid executing it was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as the requirement in the Fourth Amendment that a warrant describe with particularity the "persons or things to be seized" is clearly stated. Groh v. Ramirez, #02-811, 124 S. Ct. 1284 (2004). [2004 LR May]
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on claim that he shot a fleeing pedestrian in the back after the pedestrian, who was armed, purportedly dropped his handgun. If facts were as plaintiff asserted, officer could not reasonably have believed that he was authorized to use deadly force without warning under the circumstances. Pablo Hernandez v. City of Miami, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer had at least arguable probable cause to arrest mother for obstruction of justice when she refused to let him in to serve court order concerning custody of her youngest child, which was based on allegations of neglect. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and there was no clearly established law against him attempting to gain entrance by a ruse that he merely needed to hand her the papers, without revealing that he would immediately also take the child into custody under the terms of the order. Storck v. City of Coral Springs, No. 02-16956, 354 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
     There was no probable cause to arrest a husband for violation of a domestic protection order for attending church services at the same church his wife attended, since that was not prohibited by the order. Officer who did not read the order or otherwise attempt to ascertain its contents was not entitled to qualified immunity. Beier v. Lewiston, #02-35516, 354 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
     FBI agents were not entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity on claims that they essentially "framed" a former informant on charges of kidnapping and murder by arranging for false evidence against him which led to convictions and sentences of life imprisonment and death respectively, which subsequently were overturned. Plaintiff claimed that these actions were in retaliation for his decision to stop being an informant. Manning v. Miller, #02C372, 355 F. 3d 1028 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
     Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by family of mentally ill man they shot and killed while he was driving his vehicle towards a toll plaza. Plaintiffs claimed that the officers shot him multiple times at close range and continued firing after all officers were out of the way of his vehicle, intending to hurt or kill him. Waterman v. Batton, 294 F. Supp. 2d 709 (D. Md. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for making investigatory stop of woman even if based merely on suspicion of possession of gun, which is not necessarily a crime, when investigatory stop and search occurred prior to U.S. Supreme Court decision clearly establishing the law on the issue. He was not, however, entitled to qualified immunity on the manner in which the stop was carried out, using a "sensory overload" technique designed to frighten and disorient the person. Brown v. City of Milwaukee, #02-C-0178, 288 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Wis. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
     Reasonably competent police officers could have disagreed as to whether probable cause was required to search a student suspected of drug possession when the search was conducted by school officials, so that an officer who suggested that the principal search the student in a school office was entitled to qualified immunity from the student's lawsuit claiming that he was unlawfully detained and searched. Doyle v. Rondout Valley Central School District, 770 N.Y.S.2d 480 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on claim that he shot a mentally ill man in the stomach as he pointed a butcher knife towards himself with suicidal intentions, as deadly force is only permissible when a suspect poses an imminent threat to an officer or to others. Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee, 290 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Wis. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Federal appeals court did not have jurisdiction to decide whether officers acted reasonably for purposes of their qualified immunity defense in a lawsuit seeking damages for injuries suffered when they allegedly improperly restrained plaintiff during an epileptic seizure. There were disputed versions of the facts of the incident, and the officers failed to limit their appeal to a "purely legal issue," requiring further proceedings to resolve factual disputes. Parks v. Darby Borough, No. 01-3421, 70 Fed. Appx. 64 (3d Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to property owner claiming that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his backyard and ticketing his vehicles without a warrant was not immediately appealable, despite its rejection of the officers' qualified immunity defense, since the officers were not willing to accept the plaintiff's version of the facts for purposes of appeal, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact barred summary judgment for the property owner. Brocuglio v. Proulx, No. 02-7301, 67 Fed. Appx. 58 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly arresting and using excessive force against civil rights activists who attempted to make video and audio tape records of their traffic stops in retaliation for their criticism of police. Plaintiffs had a clearly established First Amendment right to criticize and journalistically record traffic stops. McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (D. Kan. 2003). [2003 LR Dec]
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they violated the due process rights of a motorcyclist by ordering him to ride his bike away from a restaurant premises despite his allegedly intoxicated condition at the time. The officers exercised their discretion in good faith in making a determination as to the degree of his impairment at the time, and therefore were not liable for his subsequent death. Morris v. Johnson, No. A03A0111, 585 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. App. 2003). [N/R]
     Seizure of old truck from residential property without a warrant or any exigent circumstances under the authority of an abandoned property ordinance, if true, would violate landowner's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so defendant city officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Gould v. Symons, 275 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee's chanting of words in protest of police requirement that persons seeking to attend a protest rally submit to a pat down search, including "two, four, six, eight, fuck the police state," was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment for which he could not face arrest for disorderly conduct in the absence of any evidence that his words presented a "clear and present danger" of a violent reaction by the crowd. Arresting officer, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, since he believed that the arrestee was trying to incite the crowd, which had become disorderly the previous day.  Spier v. Elaesser, 267 F. Supp. 2d 806 (S.D. Ohio 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity against arrestee's claim that taking him into custody for a misdemeanor purportedly committed outside of the officer's presence was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. As a matter of federal constitutional law, the U.S. Supreme Court has left the issue open in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), the trial court found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1974) expressly ruled that warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside of their presence, even if a violation of Maryland state law, do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the arrest is supported by probable cause. Shultz v. Smith, 264 F. Supp. 2d 278 (D. Md. 2003). [N/R]
     Deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man for violating the terms of an injunction prohibiting him from having any contact with or threatening another individual when he was told, in responding to a 911 call placed from a restaurant, that the arrestee had been there and raised his fist toward the protected man, and then confirming the validity of the injunction. The disputed facts as to whether the deputy "did not like" the arrestee or whether the arrestee had been served with the injunction did not alter the result. Riebsame v. Prince, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2003). [N/R]
     Officer acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in placing a man under arrest merely for being present at a drug raid on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence that he had arrived there by riding in a truck owned by someone else in which drug paraphernalia had been found. He was therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, although supervising officer on drug raid was, since his alleged approval of the arrest was not based on anything other than a brief conversation with the arresting officer. Evett v. Detntff, No. 02-40686, 330 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Jury's verdict for defendant police officer in case accusing him of excessive force in shooting fleeing suspect in the back was inconsistent in finding that the officer used excessive force, but was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. Appeals court finds that jury was allowed to decide issue of qualified immunity without being given adequate instructions on how to do so. Stephenson v. Doe, #00-93, 332 F.3d 68 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a woman for either possession of stolen property or "obstruction" merely on the basis that she had a diamond ring and wanted to walk away to call her husband when they told her they thought it was stolen. Officers had no information other than an unsubstantiated statement from a "local felon" admittedly involved in the theft who had also admittedly lied to them earlier in the investigation. Thompson v. Wagner, No. 02-1918, 319 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Commissioner of public safety was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for state trooper's alleged lewd and suggestive comments to female motorist while strip-searching her during a traffic stop. He was allegedly aware of trooper's propensities towards misconduct with female motorists, but backed down on a decision to fire him, returning him to duty on the highways instead. Clancy v. McCabe, #01-P-806, 790 N.E.2d 1126 (Mass. App. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
     Officer's conduct in allowing a dog to continue to bite an arrestee until the suspect raised his hands as the officer ordered did not constitute excessive force, despite the fact that the suspect was in his underwear. Suspect's conduct in running away "inexplicably" from a minor traffic stop gave the officer reasons to be concerned for his and other officers' safety. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on failure to give a verbal warning prior to using the dog, but appeals court does hold that they should have given a warning, and that claims against the city could be pursued for failure to require such warnings. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, No. 02-1081, 328 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Attorney's arrest for accepting cocaine drugs from undercover officer in purported exchange for legal services did not violate his Fourth Amendment or due process rights. Prosecutor and officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their arrangement of "sting" operation. Anderson v. Larson, #02-2071, 327 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Allegedly coercing a woman facing cocaine charges into performing oral sex for money with another police officer as part of a sting operation to arrest the officer on soliciting for prostitution charges may have been a battery and violated the woman's due process rights. Federal appeals court holds, however, that officer who allegedly fraudulently threatened woman with 40 years sentence if she did not cooperate was entitled to qualified immunity, since it would not have been obvious to a reasonable officer that this violated her constitutional rights. Sting operation against officer did not violate his rights. Alexander v. Deangelo, #02-3124, 329 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Fire chief was entitled to qualified immunity that he issued a citation against the owner of rental properties for refusal to consent to a warrantless inspection of tenants' apartments. The alleged right of the owner, under the Fourth Amendment, to refuse to consent to the warrantless inspection intended to protect the tenants' safety, was not clearly established, so that a reasonable building or fire code enforcement official could have believed that the landlord had no right to refuse entry, so that he could be cited for obstructing access. Grimm v. Sweeney, #01-431, 249 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
      Officers were not entitled to immediate appeal from trial court's denial of their motion for qualified immunity when the denial was based on a finding that there were disputed material facts which concerned whether the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. Appeals court would not exercise jurisdiction over appeal when officers were not willing to concede the arrestee's version of the facts at issue. Jones v. City of Dayton, Ohio, No. 01-4165, 61 Fed. Appx. 183 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     State trooper was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a motorist who refused to sign a reckless driving citation he issued after observing the driver speeding in a large tractor truck on an interstate highway in an area with hazardous conditions. Driver's subsequent acquittal of reckless driving did not alter the result, as the trooper could reasonably have believed that the charges were justified. Wood v. Kesler, No. 01-15827, 323 F.3d 872 (11th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Use of hog-tie restraint against arrestee who had a head wound and had been sprayed with pepper spray, and was also allegedly compliant at the time of the restraint, was an excessive use of force, and officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from possible liability for arrestee's subsequent death from positional asphyxia. There was also evidence to show that county officers widely used hog-tie restraints but that no training in the use of such restraints was provided. Garrett v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Ga. 2003). [2003 LR Jul]
     Sheriff and SWAT team members were not entitled to qualified immunity for death of man shot and killed in his home after he resisted being taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. If plaintiff's factual allegations were true, and decedent was in the process of surrendering when he was shot and killed, use of deadly force against him was clearly excessive. Warrantless entry into the home when the man had "not committed" any crimes and there was no immediate need to subdue him was "reckless" and an excessive use of force. Federman v. County of Kern, No. 01-16691, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7180 (9th Cir.). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers were not responsible for intoxicated arrestee's death from drowning while trying to escape on the basis of their own failure to rescue him or their alleged prevention of bystanders' rescue efforts. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as no reasonable officer could believe that these actions violated the arrestee's clearly established rights. Hermann v. Cook, 240 F. Supp. 2d 626 (W.D. Ky. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Police officer had probable cause, under Iowa law, to arrest a juvenile driver for refusal to sign a traffic citation based on his disobedience of a direction to exit his vehicle to do so. State law allows an officer to issue a citation in lieu of arrest under these circumstances, but does not require him to do so. Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 240 F. Supp. 2d 941 (S.D. Iowa 2002). [N/R]
     Officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights in 1987 when they made a "split second" decision to shoot a suspect after she had thrown a knife at one of them in an attempt to kill him, and made an assault on a second officer by throwing a glass at him, as well as being near a source of additional potential weapons. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. No prior case law from either the U.S. Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that using deadly force under such circumstances was excessive. Willingham v. Loughnan, No. 99-4005, 321 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestees were entitled to amend their complaint against deputy sheriff, prosecutor and other defendants claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for sexual abuse of a child in case where child later recanted his testimony. Initial complaint did not contain enough specific facts for court to determine whether absolute or qualified immunity applied to the defendants' alleged conduct. Broam v. Bogan, No. 01-17246, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     UPDATE: While officers' investigatory stop of a man standing on his own porch based solely on a tip from an anonymous source violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, the officers were still entitled to qualified immunity because the dispatcher had told them that the man could be intoxicated and armed, which the officers could reasonably rely on without knowing the source of the information. The officers acted properly in preventing him from retreating inside the home, which would have interfered with their investigation, and in arresting him once he resisted and bit an officer. Feathers v. Aey, No. 02-3368, 319 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     State and federal agents who detained and handcuffed employees for three and a half hours in 1996 while executing a search warrant for unlawful drugs on a workplace were entitled to qualified immunity. Such a search warrant carries with it limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted, and it was not shown either that the length of the detention was unreasonable under the circumstances or that the agents were unreasonable in their belief that they were not violating clearly established law when they displayed drawn guns, and pushed one of the employees to the ground when he failed to obey an order to "get down." Pikel v. Garrett, #01-3850, 55 Fed. Appx. 29 (3rd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and two other high-level federal officials entitled to qualified immunity from liability for alleged excessive use of force by armed federal agents who executed search and arrest warrants to extract 6 year-old Cuban refugee from a relative's house. Gonzalez v. Reno, No. 01-14475, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 5762 (11th Cir). [2003 LR May]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they kept two apartment occupants handcuffed for two hours while their apartment was being searched under a warrant. The complaint alleged that they were kept handcuffed long after the officers had reason to believe that they were not connected with persons sought in connection with a shooting. Seaman v. Karr, #27935-5-II, 59 P.3d 701 (Wash. App. 2002). [N/R]
     Prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity from liability for a decision to prosecute, even if it was purportedly based on an inadequate police investigation. Prosecutor was only entitled, however, to qualified immunity for making statements to the media, but did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights when all that was communicated was the fact of the arrest, even if that caused the arrestee to be held up to ridicule and scorn. Joseph v. Yocum, #01-4142, 53 Fed. Appx. 1 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Trial court erred in ruling that officer's accidental shooting of auto passenger was reasonable and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officer's manner of approaching the car with his gun drawn and pulling the passenger out of the vehicle was reasonable, based on expert testimony and the claim that the passenger put his hands up and was cooperating. Heyward v. Christmas, #3562, 573 S.E.2d 845 (S.C. App. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim concerning the arrest of a social visitor to an apartment after a search warrant had been executed there. The need for probable cause to seize the visitor was "clearly established." Gregory v. Oliver, 226 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
     Arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting man for possession of stolen motorcycle or for depriving owner of use of motorcycle when the owner had not reported the motorcycle stolen and offered to show the officer papers proving ownership prior to the arrest. Daley v. Harbor, 234 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Mass. 2002). [N/R]
     Disputed issues of fact as to whether or not the police officers reasonably believed that they saw a motorist point or fire a gun at them following a traffic stop precluded summary judgment of the basis of qualified immunity for the officers in a lawsuit over their shooting and killing of the motorist. Lee v. Hanna, #01-55403, 32 Fed. Appx. 937 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Department of Motor Vehicles investigator was entitled to qualified immunity in federal civil rights malicious prosecution claim since the investigator informed the prosecutor in a timely fashion that the arrestee was innocent of the charge of possessing a "forged instrument" when he tried to exchange a valid U.S. Virgin Islands driver's license for a New York license. Record of Virgin Islands license's issuance could not be found at the time of the arrest, but showed up later, so there was probable cause for the arrest. Kinzer v. Jackson, #01-0157, 316 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     A reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to prosecute an attorney for concealing evidence when he advised a client being investigated for involvement in a hit and run accident that he could move his vehicle as long as evidence was preserved. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity from attorney's malicious prosecution claims. Tittle v. Raines, 231 F. Supp. 2d 537 (N.D. Tex. 2002). [N/R]
   Federal appeals court did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the trial court's denial of qualified immunity to a defendant arresting officer when there were disputed issues of material fact concerning the officer's actions in seeking a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest for obstruction of justice. Appellate review, before final judgment, of a denial of qualified immunity is only proper when the denial is based on a question of law, rather than of fact. Additionally, officer did not make an unqualified concession of the plaintiff's version of the facts for the purposes of the appeal. Ray v. Wolters, #00-2345, 30 Fed. Appx. 550 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Defendant police officer could not challenge, on appeal of an initial denial of qualified immunity, the trial court's determination that sufficient evidence existed from which a finder of fact could conclude that the plaintiff arrestee was fleeing and no longer posed a threat when the officer shot him. This was an attempt to challenge the "genuineness" of the factual disputes in the case, rather than their "materiality." A proper challenge on appeal would be one to their "materiality," i.e., contending that no violation of a clearly established federal right would be shown even if all of the plaintiff's factual allegations were true. Reyes v. City of Richmond, Tex., #01-20398, 287 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2002) . [N/R]
     Even if an officer "seized" a tenant in ordering him to vacate his home upon threat of arrest after a landlord told the officer that he wanted the individual removed, the seizure was reasonable under circumstances where the tenant had no written lease and did not pay rent, the house was under construction at the time, and the level of the dispute between the landlord and tenant was serious enough that the tenant had called the police. Even if the officer acted unreasonably, however, he was entitled to qualified immunity. White v. City of Markham, #01-2034, 310 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Mar]
     Arrestee, who was "thoroughly uncooperative" and allegedly intoxicated, did not have a "clearly established" Fourth Amendment right not to be tightly handcuffed, since various federal trial and appeals courts disagreed on the issue. Istvanik v. Rogge, #01-3395, 50 Fed. Appx. 533 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Mar]
     Investigator was not entitled to qualified immunity for submitting affidavit which resulted in plaintiff being arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm when he had information from another state that the plaintiff had been arrested on felony charge, but no information suggesting that he had ever been convicted of the offense. Kearse v. Moffett, No. 01-2390, 311 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Mar]
     Police detective was not entitled to qualified immunity when she searched jail records for the name of a suspect in the theft of checks from a retail store and is alleged to have randomly selected one of two suspects with almost identical names as the person sought and testified to that effect before the grand jury. Kentucky v. Young, #01-6219, 51 Fed. Appx. 543 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer's alleged delay in loosening handcuffs for approximately ten minutes after arrestee complained that they were too tight, even if true, did not violate the arrestee's clearly established rights, so that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Kopec v. Tate, 230 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
     Indian tribe should be treated as a municipality for purposes of a federal civil rights lawsuit by a newspaper reporter claiming that his federal constitutional rights were violated by his arrest and removal from tribal land by tribal police officers. Tribe could not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the absence of any claim that a tribal policy or custom caused the alleged injuries. Tribal police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting reporter based on his refusal to leave meeting room after a request by the chairman of the tribal executive committee that he do so. Armstrong v. Mille Lacs County Sheriffs Department, 228 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D. Minn. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers' actions in entering a home without a warrant with their guns drawn was justified by the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and the officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity, when they had been told that a woman might be in danger and they reasonably believed that she was inside the house. Martin v. City of Oceanside, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers did not have qualified immunity from liability for allegedly evicting the residents of a women's shelter without a pre-deprivation process, since Kentucky state law protecting against evictions without pre-eviction notice and court proceedings were well established as were relevant U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Thomas v. Cohen, #01-5088, 304 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
     Arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity from a landowner's claim that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights and used excessive force during her arrest for interference with a gas company's easement over her property. The plaintiff did not dispute that she attempted to take a gun from one officer's holster when officers were trying to arrest her husband, so they acted reasonably in believing that they were using appropriate force in subduing her by pushing her to the ground. Pulice v. Enciso, #01-3748, 39 Fed. Appx. 692 (3rd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     The possibility that an arresting officer could have reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest a hotel manager for theft of petty cash deliveries was enough to provide him with qualified immunity from liability for false arrest, despite the alleged access of other hotel employees to the funds and the officer's alleged failure to interview either the manager or other hotel employees before making the arrest. Robinson v. Gerritson, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Ill. 2002).[N/R]
     Arresting officer acted reasonably in relying on reports, videotapes, public records and other materials prepared by private investigators who had been hired by his superiors in making an arrest of an injured correctional officer for allegedly continuing to collect job injury benefits when he no longer qualified for them. The officer had no duty to conduct an independent investigation into the materials provided by his superiors in order to use them as the basis for an arrest, and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Caldarola v. Calabrese, #01-9053, 298 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Sheriff's deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity for making an arrest based on a civil dispute over the ownership of a car. Stevens v. Rose, #00-15840, 298 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
     Police officer's alleged failure, before signing affidavit in support of criminal complaint for cruelty to animals, to investigate the truthfulness and reliability of a videotape showing the conditions under which horses were kept and the accompanying statements made by a fellow officer was not "reckless disregard for the truth." Officer was entitled to qualified immunity in federal civil rights lawsuit over subsequent arrest under warrant. Pennington v. Penner, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Kan. 2002). [N/R]
     Leader of narcotics task force was entitled to qualified immunity from civil rights lawsuit based on plaintiff's arrest and incarceration since plaintiff failed to identify any clearly established constitutional or statutory right that the defendant had violated. Fannon v. Shewell, #00-2081, 37 Fed. Appx. 744 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for investigatory stop and subsequent arrest of a man standing on his own porch based solely on a tip from an anonymous source that the officers knew nothing about, after receiving a phone call which gave no clear evidence of any illegal activity. Feathers v. Aey, 196 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Ohio 2002). [2002 LR Oct]
      A reasonable police officer would have known that shooting a motorist in the back during a routine traffic stop when he posed no immediate threat to the officer and was not attempting to flee was an excessive use of force, precluding qualified immunity. Appeals court had no jurisdiction to review the trial court's determination, in denying qualified immunity to officer, that there were factual issues as to whether the officer shot the motorist in the back. Lewis v. Boucher, #01-1584, 35 Fed. Appx. 64 (4th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers who made a warrantless entry into the plaintiff's home in February of 1999 to make a "welfare check" were entitled to qualified immunity in the homeowner's federal civil rights lawsuit when the law in the federal appeals circuit on that date on the police officers' community caretaking function to respond to emergency situations was not clearly established on date, but was instead subsequently decided in United States v. Cervantes, 219 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 9122(2001). Humphrey v. Lane County, #00-36036, 35 Fed. Appx. 538 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
    Officer's alleged action in striking the arrestee's face and slamming his face into the floor after he had been subdued, if true, violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on excessive force so that officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Appeals court could decide legal issue on appeal despite officer's dispute of arrestee's version of the facts. Phelphs v. Coy, #00-4257, 356 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     Factual issues existed as to whether officers reasonably believed that they saw a gun, a muzzle flash, or were otherwise threated with deadly force by a motorist that they shot and killed after stopping him for a traffic violation. Officers were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Lee v. Hanna, No. 01-55403, 32 Fed. Appx. 937 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
    Officers acted objectively reasonably in forcing a diabetic motorist to a stop and forcibly removing him from his truck through the use of pepper spray, baton blows, and bites from a police dog when his erratic driving was serious enough that people might have been killed by it, and he refused to comply with lawful orders once he was stopped. Moore v. Winer, 190 F. Supp. 22d 804 (D. Maryland 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity when he made no material misrepresentations in an application for an arrest warrant for extortion and conducted a reasonable investigation first. Prosecutor's subsequent decision to dismiss the charges did not alter the result. Menebhi v. Mattos, 183 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D.R.I. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer's arrest of suspect, in November 1997 in Michigan, for refusal to provide identification after being requested to do so did not violate clearly established constitutional law. Arresting officer and police chief were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Risbridger v. Connelly, #00-2471, 275 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR May]
     Reasonable officers could disagree as to whether there was probable cause for arresting a motorist (who was a police officer) for intoxicated driving after a traffic stop following the motorist's vehicle being observed crossing the center and white lane-control lines, and after the motorist appeared to fail a field sobriety test and refused to take a second one. Fersner v. Prince George's County, Md., 138 F. Supp. 2d 685 (D. Md. 2001). [N/R]
     Shooting and killing of suicidal individual armed with a shotgun who had only pointed his weapon at himself would have been unreasonable if he stopped advancing on officers at the time he was shot, but trial court must still determine whether the law on that subject was clearly established at the time of the incident in order to rule on officer's defense of qualified immunity. Bennett v. Murphy, #00-2667, 274 F.3d 133 (3rd Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Apr]
     Arresting officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a man for a rape committed at a golf course when the facts showed only an eight-minute window of time in which he could have committed the offense, the victim failed to identify him in a line-up, and her description of her assailant did not include any of his "distinctive facial" features. Wrubel v. Bouchard, 173 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Mich. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting suspect on drug charges after crack cocaine was found in the trailer which he co-owned with his sister. Subsequent dropping of charges after a third party also arrested pled guilty and accepted responsibility for all drugs found did not alter the fact that officers, based on the totality of the circumstances, acted reasonably in arresting the plaintiff at the time they did so. Lea v. Kirby, 171 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2001). [N/R]
     Federal customs agents who strip-searched and x-rayed a female traveler entering the country at an airport, and ordered a pelvic exam after she disapproved of the treatment of the only other African-American passenger on the plane were not entitled to qualified immunity. Initial stop and search was "routine," but subsequent actions were not supported by reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. Brent v. Ashley, No. 99-12169, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
     Officers had probable cause to take a 17-year-old into custody as a suspected runaway when she fit the general description of the person sought and was seen in close proximity to where the runaway was reported seen; officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the minor's mistaken identity claim. Debellis v. Kulp, No. 00-3386, 166 F. Supp. 2d 255 (E.D. Pa. 2001). [N/R]
     347:171 Man shot by confidential informant with gun allegedly borrowed from police officer could sue officer on "state-created-danger" theory; officer was not entitled to qualified immunity; city was not liable, however, as no policy or customer of inadequate storage of evidence (including the gun) was shown, and no policy of inadequate training. McClendon v. City of Columbia, No. 00-60256, 258 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2001).
     347:167 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing a suspect who emerged from his vehicle after a chase brandishing his gun, which he had just fired once through the roof of his truck, regardless of whether he was shot in the side while directly pointing his weapon at the officers, or shot in the back as the plaintiff claimed. Leong v. City of Detroit, 151 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
     347:163 Seventh-grade student handcuffed by police officer in principal's office after he allegedly attacked principal and stepped on officer's foot could not recover damages for "excessive force" in the absence of physical injury from the handcuffing; officer and principal were entitled to qualified immunity. Neague v. Cynkar, No. 99- 4533, 258 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2001).
     347:163 U.S. Supreme Court orders further proceedings as to whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by anti-logging protesters claiming that the use of pepper spray to compel their compliance with law enforcement orders was an excessive use of force. Humboldt County v. Headwaters Forest Defense, #00-1649, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5482.
     347:165 Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing suspect he claimed was biting his fingers and swinging a flashlight at him at the time he shot; appeals court rules that disputes between officer and witnesses as to the details of what happened before suspect ran into field were material when officer was the sole witness to shooting. Bazan v. Hidalgo County, #97-41463, 246 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2001).
     346:158 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for subjecting arrestee to "perp walk" displaying him to the media in 1997, as the right not to be displayed in this manner was not then clearly established. Lyde v. New York City, 145 F. Supp. 2d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
     346:150 Deputy's use of deadly force against occupants of fleeing auto theft suspects was illegal seizure of passenger struck and paralyzed, so county was not entitled to summary judgment in civil rights lawsuit, but appeals court panel rules, by 2-1, that shooting deputy was entitled to qualified immunity and could have reasonably believed that fleeing suspects posed a threat of serious harm to other motorists. Vaughan v. Cox, No. 00-14380, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19417 (11th Cir.).
     346:147 Los Angeles arrestee could pursue federal
     civil rights claims against present and former city council members and current and former city attorneys, based on their role in allegedly deciding in "bad faith" to indemnify police officers assessed punitive damages by juries in past civil rights lawsuits. Blumberg v. Gates, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
     344:120 Officer had arguable probable cause to arrest flea market vendors for unlawful sale of goods with unauthorized trademarks, based in part on low prices of goods bearing "Nike" trademarks, and was entitled to qualified immunity; absolute immunity protected a second officer from claims based on his testimony at preliminary hearing. Scarbrough v. Myles, No. 00-14063, 245 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
     344:116 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity from claim that he kicked an arrestee "very hard" in his foot while making a custodial arrest for a vehicle offense. Gross v. Pirtle, No. 00-2130, 245 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2001).
     344:115 Military police officer who shoved protester into a van while arresting him at the scene of a speech by the U.S. Vice President at a military based was entitled to qualified immunity; U.S. Supreme Court rules that inquiry on qualified immunity is whether an officer would have clearly known that his use of force was improper under the particular circumstances faced, not merely whether the use of force is ultimately judged reasonable. Saucier v. Katz, No. 99-1977, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001).
     343:101 City legislators are not entitled to qualified immunity if they act in bad faith in indemnifying police officers against awards of punitive damages in federal civil rights lawsuits for misconduct. Navarro v. Block, No. 99-55623, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).
     338:27 UPDATE: Federal appeals court reduces jury award of $98 million for failure to protect informant from being murdered to $1.1 million, while upholding determination that officers should have constantly monitored informant as he faced dangerous situation in attempting to purchase crack cocaine; punitive damages were not available against D.C. and informant's mother had no constitutional claim based on loss of companionship of adult non-dependent son. Butera v. District of Columbia, No. 00-7008, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
     344:123 Shooting and killing by sheriff's deputy of Ohio man's pet lioness, allegedly after the escaped animal was tranquilized and returning to the barn from which it had roamed, stated a claim for unreasonable seizure of property, on which the sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity. Newsome v. Erwin, 137 F. Supp. 2d 934 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
     341:72 Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for engaging in high-speed pursuit of driver operating a stolen vehicle, including pursuit of vehicle once it began to go the wrong way on an interstate highway; further proceedings ordered in lawsuit by family of deceased motorist struck by pursued vehicle. Feist v. Simonson, No. 99-1687, 222 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2000).
     341:70 Jury had to determine whether officer who broke passenger window in pursued vehicle once it stopped had reason to believe that passenger, who may have been only reacting to breaking of window, was reaching for a weapon, justifying officer's shooting and killing of passenger; no qualified immunity granted. Ribbey v. Cox, No. 99-4022, 222 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2000).
     340:58 Federal appeals court panel, by 2-1, rules that merely pointing a gun at the head of an unarmed arrestee, if he did not pose a threat, could constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment even if unaccompanied by other force, and that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, since this was "clearly established"; full federal appeals court grants rehearing to review issue. Robinson v. Solano County, No. 99-15225, 218 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000), rehearing en banc granted, 229 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2000).
     339:44 Passenger in car shot by officer who fired on it as he jumped onto the hood of his car to avoid being hit was entitled to $10,000 in damages as well as $10,000 in attorneys' fees and court costs; factual dispute over the behavior of the vehicle as it approached the officer, and qualified immunity defense, was for the jury to decide. Fisher v. City of Memphis, Nos. 98-6550, 98-5902, 234 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2000).
     339:42 Officer was not liable for detention of landlord, which allegedly caused his collapse because he needed access to his oxygen and medical equipment to prevent reoccurrence of recent stroke, when officer had no information concerning landlord's medical condition when she detained him while attempting to resolve landlord-tenant dispute over tenant property. Loudes v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 233 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2000).
     339:37 Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting a 17-year-old alien for failure to carry a "green card," based on a request from an INS agent who told him that an offense had been committed, despite the fact that federal law only criminalized such failure for those over 18; officer could reasonably rely on INS agent's knowledge of immigration law. Liu v. Phillips, No. 99- 2336, 234 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2000).
     339:38 Motorists arrested at gunpoint for nonpayment of parking fines were entitled to $5,000 each for excessive use of force; appeals court rules that jury's finding that officer's use of force was excessive was conclusive for purposes of qualified immunity analysis. McNair v. Coffey, #00-1139, 234 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2000). [Assault and Battery: Physical; Firearms Related: Intentional Use].
     338:29 Officer's "deceptive" use of a civilian, allegedly identified as an officer although he was only an unauthorized "ride-a-long", to detain two persons entering a hotel lobby, if true, violated clearly established law, so that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Polk v. District of Columbia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2000).
     337:14 Strip search of minor female, not named in search warrant, during search of trailer for marijuana, would not be reasonable absence particularized suspicion that she was concealing drugs on her person; deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Sims v. Forehand, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
     337:12 UPDATE: Federal appeals court rules that "perp walks"--parading arrestees for the sole purpose of having them photographed--violate the Fourth Amendment. Lauro v. Charles, #99-7239, 219 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2000).
     337:10 Officer's alleged threat to tell 18-year-old man's grandfather that he was gay would have violated the constitutional right to privacy; federal appeals court rejects
     officer's motion for qualified immunity despite lack of specific prior caselaw on the subject, ruling that the general right to privacy was clearly established and covers all "intimate facts of a personal nature." Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, No. 99-1768, 232 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir. 2000).
     337:7 Federal trial court rules that motorist's gesture of displaying his middle finger to an officer driving by was protected First Amendment speech; officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and could be held liable for arresting motorist for disorderly conduct. Nichols v. Chacon, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Ark. 2000).
     333:131 "Uncomfortable" search of youth's groin area and use of "minimal" force while arresting and handcuffing him did not constitute excessive use of force; officer was entitled to qualified immunity when conduct caused bruising which arrestee admitted disappeared quickly and for which he did not seek medical treatment. Nolin v. Isbeli, #99-10040, 207 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000).
     333:137 Georgia county sheriff's action in arresting, for assault, his wife's co-worker, who had a verbal confrontation with her, was not county policy since the county had no say in how he performed his duties. Sheriff, however, was not entitled to qualified immunity, since no reasonable officer could have thought the mere verbal confrontation constituted a criminal assault. Fletcher v. Screven County, Georgia, 92 F.Supp. 2d 1377 (S.D. Ga. 2000).
     334:148 Federal appeals court could not review trial judge's denial of qualified immunity to two sheriff's deputies in lawsuit claiming they used excessive force during a wrongful arrest; such denials are only immediately appealable when based on a conclusion of law, but in this case, there was a disputed issue of fact as to what actually happened. Thibodeaux v. Harris County, Texas, No. 99- 21054, 215 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2000).
     335:168 Police officers who forcibly broke down the door to a man's apartment without a warrant and entered to arrest him for domestic battery were entitled to qualified immunity; even though the facts did not adequately indicate the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry, they could reasonably have thought it did, based on a 911 call by a woman in the apartment which was twice disconnected. Sanders v. Marovich, 102 F.Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
     329:77 Female motorist who exposed her breasts and nipples outside her vehicle to a female and a male officer in order to show that she was not the suspect wanted in an arrest warrant (who had a tattoo on her breast) could not recover damages from the officers when she herself spontaneously engaged in the exposure and the officers did not order or demand that she expose herself in this manner then and there; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Nelson v. McMullen, No. 98-6454, 207 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2000).
     331:101 There was a factual issue as to whether three plainclothes officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the occupants of a car when they thought the occupants acted "nervous"; officers were entitled to qualified immunity, however, on excessive force claims based on their firing back after shots were fired at them. Jackson v. Sauls, #98-8980, 206 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2000).
     331:104 City hall steps were a "traditional public forum" on which anti-abortion protester had a right to demonstrate unless he impeded access to the building or violated a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction; jury should have been instructed that he had this right to demonstrate there and should not have been allowed to decide a legal issue of whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting him. Pouillon v. City of Owosso, #98-1967, 206 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2000).
     332:120 Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting protesters who were passing out anti- income tax leaflets on a sidewalk outside a post office on the day that federal income tax returns were due; officer could reasonably believe that leafleting there would impede the access of postal patrons to the facility, and the sidewalk in question was not a "traditional public forum." Paff v. Kaltenbach, No. 99-6025, 204 F.3d 425 (3rd Cir. 2000).
     333:139 Officers' warrantless entry into a home where unsupervised underage drinking was going on was justified by exigent circumstances of possible escape of intoxicated teenagers and destruction of evidence while a search warrant was being obtained, along with the danger to the public of intoxicated driving; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Howes v. Hitchcock, 66 F.Supp. 2d 203 (D. Mass 1999).
     333:142 Strip search of entire fifth grade elementary school class in an attempt to find $26 collected for a class trip which was allegedly missing was "disproportionate" to the harm of missing the money and therefore an unreasonable search; police officer and teacher, however, were entitled to qualified immunity for conducting search in 1996, when the law on the subject was not "clearly established." Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education, 94 F.Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ga. 1999).
     335:174 Police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity for forcing bartender to submit to a frisk search of his person when there was no reasonable objective suspicion that the bartender was dangerous or had committed any crime; chief allegedly knew that bartender only pulled a pistol in self-defense after bar patron threatened to kill him for macing him while ejecting him from the premises. Painter v. Robertson, #98-3340, 185 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 1999).
     [N/R] Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on claims that he failed to provide adequate medical treatment for arrestee's gunshot wound; officer relied on medical personnel's determinations of what treatment was required. Brumfield v. Lowe, 744 So.2d 383 (Miss. App. 1999).
     335:166 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for using force they reasonably thought necessary to attempt to remove large 350 pound motorist/arrestee from his vehicle, even if they were erroneous in that belief. McGruder v. Heagwood, No. 99-1238, 197 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 1999).
     330:86 Prosecutors were entitled to qualified immunity for obtaining search warrants for examination of an auto dealership's records after customer complained that he had not received a rebate he claimed he was entitled to; prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for impaneling grand jury and for their subsequent conduct in prosecuting auto dealership employees. Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash-Holmes, No. 97-15275, 169 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1999).
     330:87 Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting female bail bondsman for first-degree burglary and second-degree assault when they ignored exculpatory evidence that bondsman had entered the house after being invited inside by a man she had come to arrest with a valid arrest warrant for failing to appear in court after being bonded out, and that she only wound up macing his grandmother because he used her as a shield while trying to escape arrest. Womack v. City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, #99-1302, 99-1303, 193 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 1999).
     330:94 Officers who entered an apartment with an arrest warrant but no search warrant were entitled to qualified immunity from apartment resident's lawsuit claiming illegal search when it turned out that subject of arrest warrant did not reside there, since officers had an objectively reasonable belief that he did. Clayton v. City of Kingston, 44 F.Supp. 2d 177 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
     328:51 Officer had probable cause to arrest a man for battery based on the statements of the man he allegedly battered; no general obligation, once probable cause exists, to conduct a thorough investigation in hopes of uncovering potentially exculpatory evidence; officer was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Spiegel v. Cortese, No. 97- 4113, 196 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1999).
     329:67 Man allegedly beaten unconscious on the street by police officer and then left there had a clearly established right to medical assistance; officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on denial-of-medical-care claim. Regalado v. City of Chicago, 40 F.Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
     329:71 Arrests and threatened arrests of anti- abortion protesters on highway overpass for alleged violation of a state statute prohibiting "loitering" violated their First Amendment rights as overpass was similar to a public street and therefore a public forum; officer was entitled to qualified immunity, however, as he relied on the constitutionality of the statute, acted on the orders of his supervisor, and believed that the protesters represented a hazard to traffic safety; no showing of official policy or custom as required for municipal liability. Lyttle v. Brewer, 77 F.Supp. 2d 730 (E.D. Va. 1999).
     326:24 Officer did not violate clearly established rights of husband by insisting, correctly, on estranged wife's right, under Florida law, to assistance in entering jointly owned home, from which she had been excluded by husband, in order to recover medications and other personal items. Montague v. Cooley, 735 So. 2d 511 (Fla. App. 1999).
     327:35 Officers who allegedly choked an arrestee, threw him down the stairs, and stepped on his face were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability; a portion of their actions was captured on videotape and clearly established law gave the plaintiff the right to be free of the alleged misconduct. Johnston v. City of Bloomington, #97- 4396, 170 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 1999).
     327:36 Police officer may assert that he had probable cause for an arrest on a "related crime" as a means of asserting a qualified immunity defense in a false arrest lawsuit, even if there was no probable cause for an arrest on the charge initially made; officer did not show, however, that "related crimes" were involved in his arrest of plaintiff for failure to provide his name who was later charged with an assault on a neighbor. Sheehy v. Town of Plymouth, #98-2080, 191 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1999).
     325:3 Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting store owner based on store customer's statement that she had assaulted him when he failed to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation, ignored exculpatory evidence, and declined to interview the only third party witness who saw the entire incident; no exigent circumstances precluded a more thorough investigation before making an arrest. Kuehl v. Burtis, #98- 1774, 173 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 1999).
     325:7 Officer's observation of vehicle stopped the night before, in which occupants had been minors smoking marijuana, combined with observation of occupant returning to vehicle from liquor store with large bag, provided him with reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stop; finding liquor within gave him grounds to arrest minor occupants; officer was entitled to qualified immunity for overnight detention of 17-year-old minor held in jail because police officer father declined to accept custody of son. Trzaskos v. St. Jacques, 39 F.Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 1999).
     325:10 Detectives who allegedly continued to question criminal suspects after they invoked the right to remain silent and asked for an attorney could be sued for violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination; alleged training that statements elicited through such questioning may be used at trial for impeachment purposes did not entitle detectives to qualified immunity. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, Nos. 97-56499 & 97-56510, 195 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 1999).
     323:163 Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit claiming that he pushed a man through a car window; officer did not claim that man used any force against him; attorneys' fee award based on $200 per hour was appropriate. Weyel v. Catania, 728 A.2d 512 (Conn. App. 1999).
     {N/R} Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity for civil rights claims related to issuance of search warrant, since it was supported by probable cause; county, however, could not assert qualified immunity as a defense. Walden v. Carmack, No. 97-3422, 156 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 1999).
     322:158 Officers properly made warrantless entry into residence after they were told that "bad" domestic dispute had just occurred inside and that screaming had been heard coming from the building; search of residence was proper, since female resident's statement that her boyfriend had left, to safeguard her and her children against the possibility that he was actually still present and had intimidated her into making that statement. Tierney v. Davidson, #97-7172, 133 F.3d 189 (2nd Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity if they knowingly used false testimony by an informant to support charges against an individual who was not actually involved in a drug scheme. Hammond v. Kunard, 148 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Failure by trial court to specify which factual issues barred qualified immunity or show that officer did not violate any clearly stated law required a remand of the case for further proceedings. White v. Balderama, #97- 50612 (5th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Federal appeals court had jurisdiction over appeal from trial court's refusal to consider officers' untimely motion for qualified immunity. Rosario-Diaz v. Ortiz, #97-1756, 97-1757 (5th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Federal appeals court could properly look at all evidence in the record to decide what version of a shooting incident the trial court assumed in denying officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Colston v. Barnhat, No. 96-40634, 146 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest or excessive force claims when arrestee claimed that he pushed her against a soda machine, handcuffed her, and then dragged her to a police vehicle despite the lack of any evidence that she posed a threat to anyone. Sheth v. Webster, 137 F.3d 1447 (11th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Psychiatrists who allegedly acted recklessly in declaring an officer fit for duty and able to carry a weapon could not assert pretrial qualified immunity defense; plaintiffs claimed that psychiatrists failed to gather required data and "virtually ignored" information that they did receive. Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos, #97-2260 to 97-2262 and 97-2264, 131 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998).
     322:149 No clearly established law, in 1969-70 or now, granting an individual a constitutional right to have a gun dealers' license despite alleged support of organizations engaged in violent activities. Rivera-Ramos v. Roman, #98- 1021, 98-1022, 98-1023, 156 F.3d 276 (1st Cir. 1998).
     321:139 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity from homeowners lawsuit for losing all physical evidence relating to theft of $96,000 from an ice chest buried under their home. Harrell v. Cook, #97-3404, 169 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 1999).
     321:137 Update: $1 million settlement in lawsuit over man's shooting in the back by police officer; Supreme Court was to review whether officer was entitled to qualified immunity, but further proceedings canceled by agreement of parties. Snyder v. Trepagnier, #98-507, 119 S.Ct. 1493 (1999); settlement results reported in American Bar Association Journal, p. 44 (June 1999). Snyder v. Trepagnier, #96-30935, 142 F.3d 791, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 10693, rehearing en banc denied, 149 F.3d 1181 (5th Cir. 1998).
     321:133 Detective was entitled to qualified immunity from arrestee's federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that he knowingly gave false testimony at arrestee's trial; all detective did was testify as to what another officer told him, and nothing showed that detective did not reasonably rely in other officer's identification of suspect. Devose v. Addison, #98-3585, 172 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 1999).
     320:126 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for using wiretap recording allegedly illegally gathered by private party as a means of convincing one party to the conversation to become an informant; "extraordinary circumstances" of their reliance on advice of prosecutor entitled them to such immunity even though such use of tape was illegal. Davis v. Zirkelbach, #97-1107, 149 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 1998).
     320:117 Officers were properly denied qualified immunity against arrestee's claim that they unnecessarily knocked her to the ground, kneed her in the back after she was handcuffed, and searched under a sheer nightgown for a weapon they knew she did not possess; officers' appeal of denial was "meritless" when factual issues were hotly disputed. Dufour-Dowell v. Cogger, #97-2928, 97-2934, 152 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 1998).
     319:106 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting at suspect detainee who ducked behind truck door when another suspect present pulled a gun on a second officer; officer was not required to wait until a potential threat became an actual threat; fact that detainee he shot was actually unarmed did not alter result. Medeiros v. Town of Dracut, 21 F.Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 1998).
     319:105 Officer who arrested man for disorderly conduct after he argued with four officers struggling to restrain and transport an arrestee was entitled to qualified immunity; arguable probable cause for the arrest existed under Illinois law. Humphrey v. Staszak, #97-2163, 148 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 1998).
     319:102 Police officer who allegedly fired twice at fleeing vehicle with two minor children in it while motorist fled to evade speeding ticket was entitled to qualified immunity from claims on behalf of children; no constitutional due process right against "purely emotional" harm from excessive force was "clearly established" in 1990. Petta v. Rivera, #95-40157, 133 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1998).
     319:100 Supervisory police officials were not entitled to qualified immunity when they knew of police officer's violent propensities yet failed to take action against him to prevent him from coming into contact with the public; officer had previously even held other officers and acting police superintendent hostage at station, yet was restored to duty. Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos, #97-2260-97-2262 & 97- 2264, 151 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998).
     318:84 Determination, in state criminal appeal, that affidavit for search warrant was inadequate did not bar officer who signed affidavit from asserting, in subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit, that she was entitled to qualified immunity for reasonably believing that affidavit was adequate. Gentile v. Bauder, 718 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1998).
     317:74 Police officers who shot and killed suicidal man were improperly granted qualified immunity when factual issues concerning whether man had threatened to get a gun or was coming at the officers holding knives were unresolved. Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant, #96-2480, 142 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 1998).
     317:70 Prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for obtaining arrest warrants and unsuccessfully prosecuting couple for extortion, and to qualified immunity for advising police that threat to reveal sexual harassment complaint to man's family unless money was paid might be extortion. Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team, # 97-1256, 97-1299, 141 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 1998).
     316:53 Deputy sheriffs violated fellow deputy's rights by failing to turn over possibly exculpatory evidence to state investigator looking into allegation that deputy compelled prostitute in custody to perform oral sex on him in exchange for promise of food; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, however, when their violation was negligent or careless, rather than intentional; no liability for state investigator who obtained arrest warrant. Ahlers v. Schebh, 994 F.Supp. 856 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
     316:51 Deputy sheriff did not violate any clearly established federal right in taking elderly couple into custody after one of them threatened suicide and refused to obey orders of court appointed guardian; no liability for accompanying guardian and couple on air flight to another state where guardian lived. King v. Beavers, #97-3295, 148 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 1998).
     315:38 Animal control officer had no clearly established duty to intervene to halt allegedly unlawful arrest by deputy sheriff who accompanied her to residence to investigate complaint about unleashed dogs. Wilson v. Strong, #97-3563, 156 F.3d 1131 (11th Cir. 1998).
     314:28 Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit by highly intoxicated man who they released near a police station in freezing weather wearing inadequate clothing; plaintiff's conduct may have indicated that he was in no condition to take care of himself. Riordan v. City of Joliet, 3 F.Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
     313:13 Backyard and unattached garage behind home were places where homeowner had a reasonable expectation of privacy; officers violated his constitutional rights by conducting warrantless search of garage for stolen goods; officers were entitled, however, to qualified immunity, since law on this issue was not previously clearly established. Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, #97-3200, 150 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 1998).
     301:6 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for allowing reporters with cameras to accompany them while executing arrest warrant in private home. Wilson v. Layne, 110 F.3d 1071 (4th Cir. 1997). Editor's Note:
     " See also Parker v. Boyer, 93 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1081 (1997), finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for allowing media representatives to accompany them.
     301:7 Officer entitled to qualified immunity in false arrest suit when plaintiff claimed that complainant in criminal case "lied" to officer concerning incident, and failed to show any facts or circumstances that would make it unreasonable for officer to believe complainant and therefore believe that he had probable cause to arrest. Marion v. Groh, 954 F.Supp. 39 (D. Conn. 1997).
     301:14 Officers entitled to qualified immunity for entering couple's home without a search warrant to arrest non- resident son pursuant to an arrest warrant after son answered door; no clearly established law prohibited entry under such circumstances and municipality could not be held liable for failure to teach officers that such conduct was unconstitutional when it was not clear that it was. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Mass., 112 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1997).
     302:20 Jail watch commander not entitled to qualified immunity for failure to allow arrestee to place a phone call; federal appeals court finds that California state statute clearly established right to make such calls. Carlo v. City of Chino, 105 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 1997).
     302:22 Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting fleeing man armed with sawed-off shotgun; officer need not wait until armed individual "has drawn a bead" on someone before using deadly force. Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181 (11th Cir. 1997).
     303:36 Deputy U.S. Marshal was not authorized, under federal law, to make warrantless arrests for suspected state law offenses and therefore could not assert qualified immunity defense based on discharge of his federal duties when he made an investigatory stop of a person not suspected of a federal crime; further proceedings needed to determine whether he was entitled to qualified immunity as a local law enforcement officer under state law. McNally v. DeWitt, 961 F.Supp. 1041 (W.D.Ky. 1997).
     303:37 Officers' warrantless arrest of suspect for misdemeanor offense not committed in their presence, even if it violated local law, did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights; officers were entitled to qualified immunity from civil rights liability. Vargas-Badillo v. Diaz- Torres, 114 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 1997).
     303:43 Sergeant directing entry, with warrant, into home of narcotics suspect with violent record, could reasonably conclude that forced entry immediately after announcement of police presence was needed to avoid armed response; federal appeals court overturns $92,500 jury award to home occupants, one of whom was shot, against sergeant, who was entitled to qualified immunity. Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997).
     303:44 Overturning of apartment resident's drug conviction by New York high court on state constitutional grounds, together with allegations that officers withheld some facts from judge issuing search warrant for apartment, did not support federal civil rights liability when "totality of circumstances" showed that they had objective reason to believe that facts provided probable cause for search warrant; officers entitled to qualified immunity. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 115 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     305:68 Mother of public school student did not have a "clearly established right" to repeatedly strike her son with a belt on school property without having the incident investigated for the possibility of violation of state law protecting children from injury by parents; deputy was entitled to qualified immunity for investigating incident and reporting it to prosecutor, who brought criminal charge against mother. Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1997).
     305:69 Officer who did not see second officer's gun butt strike arrestee's head could not be held liable for alleged second impact, in absence of knowledge or opportunity to prevent the impact; officer should have been granted qualified immunity by trial court. Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 1997).
     306:92 Officer conducted illegal search of inside of vehicle when he had not arrested motorist or taken custody of her vehicle and did not have any reason to suspect that weapons were in vehicle or that motorist was dangerous; appeals court upholds award of $1 in nominal damages and 33 cents in attorneys' fees; officer waived qualified immunity defense by not pursuing it at trial. McCardle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     307:104 Action of passenger in moving vehicle of yelling "f--k you" and extending middle finger towards abortion protesters was protected speech under the First Amendment; passenger's rights were clearly established, so that officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting passenger for disorderly conduct. Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250 (6th Cir. 1997).
     308:119 Officers who arrested motorist for transporting pistol in the trunk of her car were entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest federal civil rights lawsuit when it was not clearly established, under Texas state law, that she had a right to transport a weapon in this manner. Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 1998).
     309:131 Officers who allegedly failed to report use of excessive force by another officer in making an arrest were entitled to qualified immunity; federal trial court finds no "clearly established" legal requirement that officers report another officer's use of excessive force. Franklin v. City of Kansas City, 959 F.Supp. 1380 (D. Kan. 1997).
     309:134 Officers had probable cause to arrest man for trespass when he refused to remove political buttons he wore in polling place in violation of state election law; arrestee's subsequent acquittal on trespass charge and subsequent striking down of statute prohibiting wearing buttons there did not alter result; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Picray v. Sealock, 138 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1998).
     309:141 Protective sweep inside home following arrest of suspects immediately outside of home was not properly supported by articulable belief that others who could endanger those on the arrest scene were inside; officers who conducted search were entitled to qualified immunity, however, in absence of controlling prior case law on the subject. Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (3rd Cir. 1997).
     310:149 Officer who ordered suspect in armed robbery case to lie on the street while calling for backup was entitled to qualified immunity for accident that occurred
     when another officer, driving to the scene, hit the suspect with his car; injuries were the "accidental effect of otherwise lawful government conduct." Evans v. Hightower, 117 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1997).
     311:174 Homeowners had no "clearly established" right in 1992 to insist that officers not bring members of the media into their home while executing a valid arrest warrant; officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity in federal civil rights lawsuit. Wilson v. Layne, 141 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Alleged planting of evidence against a suspect was a clearly established violation of constitutional rights in 1989, so that officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity if he did that. Riley v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 104 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1997).
     289:3 Officer who arrested passenger in stopped vehicle for refusing to produce identification to allow officer to fill out citation against him for failure to wear seat belt was entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established constitutional right, under such circumstances, to refuse to produce identification Nagol v. State of New Mexico, 923 F.Supp. 190 (DNM 1996). 289:4 Arre