The BBC. Bolton News. Herald Scotland. Lancashire Telegraph. Total Crime. The Hucknell Dispatch. The Scunthorpe Telegraph. Retrieved 5 December The Manchester Esorts News. The Gazette. Retrieved 30 November Retrieved 9 February Black Calendar. The Liverpool Echo.
Pink News. The Yorkshire Post. Peterborough Today. Birmingham Mail. Burnley Express. Huddersfield Daily Examiner. The Star. The Scotsman. The Standard. Get West London. Kilburn Times. Evening Standard. Bucks Free Press. Halifax Courier. Retrieved 20 December Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes file. Download as PDF Printable version. Add links. Francois Courvosier is suspected of her murder .
Eliza Patten . Emma Elizabeth Smith . Died of injuries sustained after being attacked the day. Possible victim of Jack the Ripper. Martha Tabram . Mary Ann Nichols . Jack the Ripper Identity unknown. Annie Chapman . Elizabeth Stride . Catherine Eddowes . Mary Jane Kelly . Rose Mylett . Louisa Smith . Elizabeth Jackson .
Her dismembered remains were davei in the Thames; one of the Thames Torso Murders. Alice McKenzie . Frances Coles . Annie Austin . Emily 'Phyllis' Dimmock . Known favie the ' Camden Town Murder '. Robert Wood was accused davje acquitted. Esther Prager . Maud Mills . Dvaie Frazer . Elizabeth McDermott aka 'Bella Wilson' . Mary Pelham .
Katherine Peck aka 'Carbolic Kate' . Margaret Schofield . Dora Lloyd . Josephine Martin aka 'French Fifi' . Her murder was linked to the murders of Dafie Cotton, murdered in April,and of Constance Hind in May,who were also both strangled in their rooms. Jeanette Cotton . Her murder was linked to the murders of Josephine Martin, murdered in November,and of Constance Hind in May,who were also both strangled in their rooms.
Constance May Hind . Her murder was linked to the murders of Josephine Martin, murdered in November,and of Jeanette Cotton in April,who were also both strangled in their rooms. Phyllis Spiers . Evelyn Oatley aka Leta Ward . Margaret 'Pearl' Lowe . Doris Jouannet . Peggy Richards . Agnes Stafford .
Mary McLeod . Evelyn Hatton . Eileen Cook aka 'Irish Molly' .
ni Olive Balchin . Margaret Cook . Isabel Wardle . Rita Green aka 'Black Rita . Dora Freedman . Kathleen Higgins aka 'Irish Kit' . Kathleen Maloney . Christie confessed to 7 murders including Kathleen Maloney but was only tried for the murder of his wife. He was convicted and hanged.
Ellen Carlin aka 'Red Helen' . Scottish serial killer Peter Manuel confessed to her murder shortly before he was hanged in Alice Barton . Elizabeth Figg . Daie victim of ' Jack The Stripper '. Gwynneth Rees . Hannah Tailford . Jack The Stripper. Irene Lockwood . Helen Barthelemy . Mary Flemming . Margaret McGowan aka Frances Brown . Jack the Stripper. Bridget 'Bridie' O'Hara .
Peggy Flynn . Maxwell 'Michelle' Confait . One was found guilty of arson, one guilty of manslaughter and arson, the third guilty of murder and arson. On appeal all convictions were overturned. Marc Rowntree was convicted of her manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. He was detained indefinitely by the court . Wilma McCann . Yorkshire Ripper victim. Joan Harrison . InLancashire police stated they would have had enough evidence to charge Christopher Smith of Leeds based on advances in DNA testing and a confession written shortly before his death in Emily Jackson .
Irene Richardson . Patricia "Tina" Atkinson . Jean Jordan . Yvonne Pearson . Helen Rytka . Vera Millward . Richard Ball was jailed for life for her murder . Her body was discovered in a wood . Wendy Jenkins . William "Billy" Sutherland . I killed at least 12 men or boys between andsome of whom have been identified as sex workers.
Unidentified male .
Ali's conviction overturned on appeal. He pleaded guilty to manslaugher. Brian Peel was jailed for her murder . Sheila Anderson . Julie Gardner . Jackie Waines aka Linda Guest . George Naylor was jailed for her murder . Rita Parminter aka Apricot Lil . Lynette Deborah White. Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of her murder dvaie July and sentenced to life imprisonment. Linda Donaldson . Her mutilated body was found at Lowton nr Warrington .
Michelle Raynor . Perry dismembered her body, cooked it and fed it to his cat . Patricia Parsons . Gail Whitehouse . David Williams was acquitted of her murder . Maria Requena . Her dismembered body was found near Warrington . Janine Downes . Possible victim of Alun Kyte, the 'Midlands Ripper' . Glenda Potter .
Lynne Trenholm . Michael Sams was jailed for her murder . Sharon Hoare . Possible victim of the Camden Ripper . Sarah Crump . David Smith was daviee of her murder Smith later was convicted of the murder of Amanda Walker in . Diane McInally  . Natalie Escors  . Yvonne Fitt . Carol Clark . Her body was found in the Sharpness Canal.
Karen McGregor . Her husband, Charles McGregor, stood trial for her murder but the case was found not proven. Mandy Duncan  . Rosina Outram and Sandra Butcher were jailed for her murder . Client Alan Duffy was jailed for her murder . Kyte was also convicted of the murder of Escors Turner. Dubbed the 'Midlands Ripper', he may have murdered other sex workers . Her husband Derek Barron was convicted of her murder .
Kyte was also convicted of the murder of Samo Paull. Emma Merry . Dawn Shields . Julie Finley . Marina Coppell . Her boyfriend, John Puffett, was jailed for life for her murder . Mandy Wix fscorts. Sabrina Brett . Leona McGovern . Her body was found in the Clyde. Naylor had ly murdered Davue Kershaw in . Asphyxiation . Austin Rogerson was jailed for her murder in March .
Marjorie Roberts . LexisWL 4th Cir. Escirts is no viable constitutional claim under Bivens v. In the immediate case, the claims were that a federally deputized officer duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing that the plaintiffs were part of a multistate sex-trafficking conspiracy. A federal appeals court declined to extend Bivens to cover these claims and remanded with respect to the 42 U. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court held that defendant escodts not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions constituted a violation of a clearly established escorta.
Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation was unlawful. Farah v. Weyker,U. Lexis 8th Cir. A District of Columbia anti-obstructing statute under which the three plaintiff D. The federal appeals court found that the statute conferred no sweeping power and its dsvie were clear enough to shield against arbitrary deployment.
Agnew v. Government of the District of Columbia,F. An important new U. Supreme Court ruling greatly limits the circumstances under which a suspect arrested with probable cause can assert a claim for damages for alleged violation of their First Amendment free speech rights by that arrest. One of the officers was speaking with a group of attendees at the festival when the seemingly intoxicated plaintiff started shouting at them not to talk to the police.
When the officer approached him, the plaintiff began yelling at the officer to leave. Rather than escalate the situation, the officer left. Minutes later, the plaintiff approached a second officer in an aggressive manner while he was questioning a minor, stood between him and the teenager, and yelled with slurred speech that the officer should not speak with the minor. When the plaintiff stepped toward the officer, the officer pushed him back.
The first officer saw the confrontation and initiated an arrest. After he was handcuffed, the arrestee claims that the first officer said "bet you wish you would have talked to me now. In any event, the Court found that the retaliatory arrest claim ni both officers could not succeed because they had probable cause to arrest him. The existence of probable cause to arrest defeated his First Amendment claim as a matter of law.
Nieves v. Bartlett, U. Lexis May 28. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff in lawsuit claiming that he was unlawfully arrested in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court ruled that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff where the totality of the escrots at the time of the arrest based on a search of his home and computers under a search warrant were sufficient for the detective to believe that he had committed or was committing the offense of possessing child pornography.
Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, because there was no constitutional violation, no municipal liability attached to the county and the city. Nader v. City of Papillion,U. In this case, the deputy was invited to speak to eecorts group of girls in school about bullying and fighting. When the girls were unresponsive and disrespectful, the deputy arrested the girls. The appeals i applied the two-part reasonableness test ij forth in New Jersey v.
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that the law authorized the arrest of a group of middle schoolers in order to teach them a lesson or to prove a point, and the evidence was insufficient to create ecorts cause to arrest the students for violating state statutes, and therefore the plaintiffs were also entitled to summary judgment on their state dzvie arrest claim.
Scott v. County of San Bernardino,U. Lexis 9th Cir. Officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need esclrts shoot up a kindergarten? Ross v. City of Jackson,F. A woman sued the U. A federal appeals court ruled that the discretionary 08 exception to the FTCA applied in this case where the officers enforced a daavie order.
The court ruled that, what the plaintiff insisted was certain from the EAD and removed all discretion was, in reality, sufficiently uncertain as to leave discretion in the hands of the officers. Campos v. Lexis 5th Cir. Police raided a loud late-night party in a vacant house after hearing that illegal activities were going on there. The house escorst in disarray, with a smell of marijuana and liquor on display.
When the officers spoke by phone to Peaches, she eventually admitted that she did not have permission to use the house. The owner un the premises indicated that he had not given anyone permission to be there. The officers arrested those present for unlawful entry. Several sued for false arrest. The Ravie.
Supreme Court disagreed with this award, and held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers. Their implausible answers gave the officers ample reason to believe that they were lying. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity even if they lacked actual probable cause because a reasonable officer could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests. District of Columbia secorts. Wesby,L. Lexis A man was arrested and charged in connection with a bar fight that resulted in one dead victim and one badly injured one.
He was acquitted and sued for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Escorta federal appeals court found ni summary escorte for the defendants on these claims was premature when disputed questions of material fact remained regarding key aspects of the criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution. He raised a question of material fact as to whether prosecutors and the grand jury were aware of the limited nature of the identification and the highly suggestive manner of the lineup in which he was the only suspect wearing a maroon sweatshirt.
Ih v. Lexis 2nd Cir. It was not objectively reasonable for police officers to believe that they had probable cause to arrest a man for obstruction when he stood in his own lighted doorway 30 to 40 feet away directing verbal criticism at the officers and telling them that his wife, who they were confronting in the driveway could not follow their instructions as she was disabled.
The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on First and Fourth Amendment claims. Hoyland v. McMenomy,F. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of qualified immunity for the officers, finding that the officers had not shown the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. When the husband closed the interior door to his home, telling the officers to return with a warrant, the situation was such that a reasonable officer, in the absence of exigent circumstances should have realized that breaking into the house with no fscorts, as well as making an arrest inside, violated clearly established law.
Morse v. Cloutier,F. A woman claimed that restaurant employees and the D. A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and the negligence claims against a police officer and the District of Columbia, but held that allegations of the complaint sufficiently made out civil rights claims for false arrest and excessive force, as eecorts as common law assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment against the same officer.
Hall v. District of Columbia,Dscorts. Lexis D. A woman who was arrested for possession of methamphetamine claimed that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest her. Manning v. Cotton,U. After the charges were dropped, the plaintiff sued the officers, arguing that the arrest violated her First Amendment escorhs. Overturning summary judgment for the officers, a federal appeals court found that the record indicated the officers had no evidence before them when they decided to arrest the plaintiff that suggested that the "sexy cops" costumes had any purpose that could have fallen outside the protection of the First Amendment.
To infer from the secorts and her friend's shared costumes and t performance alone an agreement to engage in a transaction subject to regulation impermissibly burdens the right to dvaie in purely expressive activity and association. The court held that something more than that constitutionally protected activity was required to justify the plaintiff's arrest.
Viewing the plaintiff's activities separately from her friend's, the court held that summary judgment for the officers was improper because her actions were entirely protected speech. Santopietro v. Howell,U. A woman shot and killed her husband in the shower, and four dacie later reported him missing. Both the wife and her sister were arrested. The sister spent 12 days in custody before her release, and sued, claiming that the arrest was not based on probable cause, but rather done to try to build a case against her.
While rscorts appeal of the dismissal of that lawsuit was pending, the sister escorgs indicted and convicted in state court of hiding a corpse, harboring or aiding a felony, and resisting or obstructing an officer. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal. For purposes of qualified immunity, the court ruled, it would not have been plain to a reasonable officer that arresting and detaining the davir under the circumstances would have been unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
Ewell v. Toney, F. At the xavie, he was cooperating with xavie and not resisting whatsoever, not even raising his voice. Stephens v. DeGiovanni, F. A motorist claimed that a state trooper unconstitutionally initiated a traffic stop and questioning, detainment, and arrest of him escorhs reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The state trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from the claim that he lacked reasonable suspicion warranting a fifty-minute extension of a traffic stop while he summoned a drug dog that alerted to the plaintiff's pickup.
De La Rosa v. White,U. After a person was murdered and several others were shot, a man was arrested without a warrant, on suspicion of involvement in these crimes. He admitted to having a gun and could have, at a minimum, been charged with felony unlawful use of a gun by a felon.
But kn prosecutor told the officers to delay charging him until lab came in establishing whether his gun had been used in the shootings and murder. After 55 hours in custody, he sued for alleged violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because he was not provided with a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours. The next day, a judge made a probable cause determination.
The plaintiff then sought class action certification that the city had a policy or practice authorizing officers to detain persons arrested without a warrant for up to 72 hours before permitting the arrestee to appear before a judge. Additionally, the offer of judgment accepted did not exempt the class certification issue. Wright v. Calumet City,U. A man who was arrested while he was video recording a police station from a public sidewalk and refused to identify himself sued three officers and the city, claiming that the arrest violated his Fourth and First Amendment escortx.
He had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, and released after a supervisor arrived.
The appeals court ruled prospectively, however, that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Turner v. Driver, U. Because West Virginia police officers have authority to make arrests for minor traffic offenses, including the expired inspection sticker the plaintiff motorist had, his arrest was supported by probable cause even though the officer made the arrest for assault and obstruction rather than the expired sticker.
As to his excessive force claim, the plaintiff suffered only abrasions minor enough that he treated them at home and did not seek medical attention. An efficient, lawful arrest causing the arrestee to suffer only de minimis minimal injuries cannot support a claim for excessive force. Pegg v. While working for a federal agency in D. The officer, claiming that the car struck his leg, called other officers. A second officer arrested him for assault on a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon, and the charges were subsequently dropped.
A video of the incident showed aggressive driving by the plaintiff. The officers had probable cause to arrest Smith. Smith v. United States,F. Officers conducting surveillance for loud-music violation decided to stop a motorist driving by. He turned into a parking lot, went into a store, and then returned to his truck. An officer heard the music coming from the truck as it pulled away, and he followed.
When the motorist saw the officer following, he turned down his music. He was stopped for loud music and excessive speed. Other officers arrived and the motorist allegedly refused to get out of his truck when requested. He claimed that he was threatened with a Taser, and arrested for obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of the lawsuit, finding probable cause for the arrest.
There was probable cause to stop a vehicle driver for speeding based on observations, even though the officers did not know the driver's exact speed, Tapley v. Chambers,F. A Memphis, Tenn. Because of that finding, the judge ruled that the practice or policy was unconstitutional under strict scrutiny, ening its enforcement. A federal appeals court upheld this result, agreeing that strict scrutiny applied.
The primary purpose of the sweep, the court said, was to impede travel. Cole v. City of Memphis,F. A man who is of Kurdish and Turkish descent claimed that two police officers arrested him because of his ethnicity in violation of equal protection. Gilani v. Matthews,F. Several plaintiff arrestees sued for false arrest after they were arrested for trespass at a party in an apartment.
A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of the claim, since there appeared to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers had probable cause to make an arrest for trespass. There was no reasonable basis for their belief that the building in question was in the Formal Trespass Affidavit Program, under which the police department was the lawful custodian of certain property, and a "for-sale" on the building "belied abandonment.
The City of New York,F. Officers were engaged in arresting a juvenile who was part of a group of juveniles running in the street after being released from school. A woman motorist stopped her car and stood outside her vehicle videotaping the arrest. A struggle ensued and the woman was arrested. At a trial of her false arrest claim, the court allowed the defense attorney to present testimony that the plaintiff had been arrested three times before.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers on all claims. A federal appeals court ordered a new trial. The plaintiff's prior arrests were not relevant to her claim for damages for this arrest, and any probative value of those arrests was far outweighed by prejudice to the plaintiff, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence b. The trial court did not determine whether the prior arrests involved conduct remotely similar to the arrest in this case, and the defense counsel's questioning revealed that the evidence was admitted for purposes of credibility, propensity, and character of the arrestee.
Baltimore City Police Department,F. Customs and Border Protection agents in Louisiana boarded a Greyhound bus and performed a routine check of passengers' immigration status. A Mongolian citizen in the U. He was therefore arrested when the agents were unable to verify his status, pursuant to the agecy's policy requiring detention under these circumstances. He sued the U. The claim was rejected under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court concluded that an investigation into a perso's immigratio status is considered discretionary when that investigation culminates in a detainment mandated by an agency policy.
Tsolmon v. There was an injunction prohibiting a man from possessing a firearm. When two deputies were escorting his ex-girlfriend into his home to remove her personal belongings, they allegedly saw a firearm in plain view, resulting in his arrest. He sued for unlawful search and seizure, but a federal appeals court held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly established that their entry into the residence's sunroom under these circumstances of the case would violate his rights.
They were also entitled to qualified immunity for alleged unlawful entry into the home from the sunroom when the plaintiff consented to that entry. The seizure of the firearm was lawful under the plain view doctrine. This gave them at least arguable probable cause for the arrest. Fish v. Brown,U. Lexis26 Fla. Weekly Fed. C 11th Cir. An officer, standing by his patrol car after 2 a. He activated his flashing lights and went in pursuit. He subsequently arrested the driver for public intoxication.
Another individual walking by refused to answer whether he had been in the pickup truck, obey orders, or produce identification, and challenged what the officer was doing. He was himself arrested. A federal appeals court upheld an award of qualified immunity to the defendant officer on a false arrest claim by this arrestee. At the time of the arrest, the officer could have reasonably believed that the plaintiff was interfering with his investigative detention of the driver.
A prior interpretation of a Wyoming state statute suggested that speech alone might rise to the level of interference with a police officer in the performance of his official duties. Culver v. Armstrong,U. Lexis 10th Cir. Officers smelled the odor of marijuana coming from a woman's home and arrested her, charging her with two counts of child endangerment.
She had refused to allow them to search inside her residence and she claimed that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering her carport and approaching the back door of her home. The trial court in the criminal case agreed and granted the plaintiff's motion to suppress the evidence, after which the charges were dropped. She then sued for false arrest without probable cause.
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant officers. ing at least four other federal appeals circuits, the Ninth Circuit took the position that the exclusionary rule does not apply in Sec. It rejected the plaintiff's position that the officer's unlawful entry into the curtilage of her home necessarily tainted the following arrest.
The plaintiff alleged no reason to doubt that the officers actually smelled what they believed to be marijuana, that children were present in the home, and that the plaintiff did not have medical marijuana privileges, which provided the officers with probable cause to arrest. Lingo v. City of Salem,U. A man was a victim of a home invasion during which a burglar punched him and locked him in a closet, after which a second burglar entered. Police later arrested a suspect who was later acquitted and sued for false arrest.
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the arresting officers, finding that there was probable cause for the arrest at the time it occurred. The victim identified the plaintiff as one of the burglars in a photo array, a neighbor identified the plaintiff as someone seen loitering outside the home at the time of the burglary, and the plaintiff's own son told police that his father had recently committed some burglaries. The plaintiff provided no evidence for his claim that the photo array was conducted improperly and a search of his home had been authorized by a warrant.
Jackson v. City of Peoria,U. A man claimed that officers violated his rights when they arrested him without a warrant three times for interfering with them during police interaction with others. The defendant officers were entitled to summary judgment under the independent intermediary doctrine because a grand jury found the arrests supported by probable cause. The plaintiff had the burden of affirmatively showing that the grand jury proceedings were tainted, and failed to do so.
Buehler v. A sheriff's lieutenant arrested the new owners agents at his foreclosed home. A federal appeals court held that a jury could reasonably conclude on the record that the lieutenant was not a tenant at sufferance after the finalized foreclosure and that he, and not the plaintiffs, was the intruder at the property. The lieutenant lacked even arguable probable cause for the arrests.
Carter v. Filbeck,U. Lexis 11th Cir. False arrest claims were properly rejected where, when the officers first viewed some photographs, they were justified in concluding that they qualified as unlawful child pornography. The court also properly found that the force used by named officers during the arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, as they had to push him along because he lightly resisted. The force they used caused him no injury, but the trial court erred in finding as matter of law that named officers lacked a realistic opportunity to intervene in an alleged assault on the plaintiff by an unidentified officer.
Figueroa v. Mazza,U. A man traveled to another city to assist African-American youth. Another man, who was a local resident, offered him accommodations at what he represented as his house, giving him a garage door opener. The local resident, however, was only a squatter in the house, with no legal right to be there. The true property owner arrived while the out of town visitor was there, and summoned police, asking that they arrest him for trespass. When police arrived, they found literature referring to Moorish Science, belonging to the visitor.
The officer claimed that they routinely make arrests based on trespass complaints, while the arrestee asserted that they remarked on his status as a Moor and congratulated themselves on detaining a member of that sect. He claimed, in his lawsuit, that the officers would not hsve arrested a Christian or an atheist under the circumstances. The trial court believed that the law was clearly established that an officer may not arrest someone believed to hold certain religious beliefs if they would not arrest those of other religions in similar circumstances.
But the court had doubt about what a reasonable jury would infer about why the arrest was made. As the denial was based on disputed facts rather than an issue law, the federal appeals court dismissed the officer's appeal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Nettles-Bey v. Williams,U. A man engaged in street preaching was arrested in several incidents while carrying a shofar, a trumpet-like instrument made from a ram's horn.
He was arrested for possessing the shofar, which officers contended violated an ordinance specifying the dimensions of s and objects that could be carried during street demonstrations. The shofar was 37 inches long and 6 inches wide. The ordinance stated that "All objects which are generally rectangular in shape shall not exceed one-fourth inch in thickness and two inches in width," and "All objects which are not generally rectangular in shape shall not exceed three-quarters inch in their thickest dimension.
They did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as possession of the shofar provided a reasonable basis for his detention, quite apart from disputed factual issues as to whether or not he complied with officers' orders or stepped into the roadway. The officers also did not violate the plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and it was clear that they did not know of the religious ificance of the shofar.
Allen v. Cisneros,U. Two African-American men and four female friends, some of whom were Caucasian, walked past a police precinct while leaving an entertainment district where they had spent the evening drinking. Off-duty officers, including an African-American man, congregated in a nearby parking lot and were drinking.
The African-American officer approached the group passing by and told them to move along, and referred to some of the females in the group as "snow bunnies," intended as a racial slur. One of the men questioned who the officer was. The officer allegedly said, "I'll show you who I am," and attacked the man. Other off-duty officers then ed in punching and kicking, and shouted "stop resisting arrest. Charges of resisting, public intoxication, and disorderly conduct were dismissed.
Qualified immunity was denied to the off-duty African-American officer, as a jury could reasonably find that his conduct violated the arrestees' rights. McDonald v. Flake,U. Lexis 6th Cir. A motorist claimed that four police officers in two squad cars pulled him over as he drove home, pointed a gun at his face, threatened to kill him, handcuffed him, and engaged in a search of his car, sll without apparent reason.
While the officers said they had no memory of the incident, a computer in one of their cars confirmed that they ran the driver's name through a law enforcement database at the alleged time of the stop, but found nothing that would have justified stopping and searching his car. After a jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers in a federal civil rights lawsuit, a federal appeals court ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial judge should not have admitted information about the plaintiff's prior arrest record into evidence, nor allowed the defendants' attorney to cross-examine the plaintiff about other, unrelated lawsuits he had pursued against the city, in a manner deed to undermine his credibility by depicting him as a chronic litigator.
It was also erroneous to let one of the officers testify generally about when it might be justified to use handcuffs and firearms during a traffic stop. These errors were not harmless. Nelson v. City of Chicago,U. A man who engaged in filming airport security procedures and was questioned there on suspicion of disorderly conduct was arrested for concealing his identity from officers by declining to show identification. He sued, claiming that he was arrested without probable cause and in retaliation for engaging in protected speech in violation of the First Amendment.
A federal appeals court found that the defendant officers and Transportation Security Administration agents were entitled to qualified immunity, since a reasonable officer could have believed that he violated state law by not showing identification during an investigatory stop, and could also reasonably believe that they had probable cause to arrest him when he filmed at an airport security checkpoint.
Additionally, at the time of the arrest, it was not clearly established that unlawful retaliation claims could arise from arrests supported by probable cause. Mocek v. City of Albuquerque,U. An officer carried out a traffic stop of a motorist who failed to use his turn al before changing lanes. The driver did not cooperate with the officer and his partner, disregarding instructions, leading to a physical confrontation.
A sergeant also arrived on the scene. The first officer placed the driver under arrest for resisting, but the charges were dismissed at court. In a lawsuit alleging false arrest and excessive force, a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant officers, relying on a dashcam video of the incident and rejecting the argument that there were material issues of fact relating to the plaintiff's claims.
Williams v. Brooks,U. Lexis 68 7th Cir. A man going through a TSA checkpoint at an airport was carrying medication with him that a TSA agent selected for testing. The man objected, worried that the testing would contaminate the medicine. A discussion about the sterility and toxicity of the sampling strip ensued and the incident ended with the man's arrest. He sued the TSA agent and a city police officer, claiming that the arrest was made without probable cause and that the two conspired to fabricate grounds for the arrest.
It appeared to the officer, the court found, that the plaintiff at one point rolled his bag towards the TSA agent and hit him, providing arguable probable cause for the arrest and entitling him to qualified immunity. Claims against the agent were also rejected for failure to state a claim. Shimomura v. Carlson,U. Members of the "Occupy Movement" sued, claiming that their arrests violated their constitutiobal rights under the Fourth and First Amendments.
A federal appeals court held that the officers had probable cause for the arrests as the plaintiffs clearly set up a tent as defined by the regulation on public land without authorization. Qualified immunity protected the officers from liability on the plaintiffs' claim that they were arrested in retaliation for their protests in violation of the First Amendment, as such arrests based on probable cause did not violate clearly established law.
Dukore v. District of Columbia,F. A former police officer sued over an off-duty incident in which, after several persons attacked him, other officers allegedly falsely arrested him, detained him for five days, and denied him access to medical care for his three broken ribs. While the criminal charges against him were dropped, the police department allegedly held an administrative hearing and fired him because of the incident. His prior lawyer in the civil lawsuit filed a stipulation with the court dismissing most of his claims.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asked the court to reopen the case because the stipulation was purportedly filed without his knowledge. A federal appeals court, vacating the trial court's refusal to reopen the case, held that there was a factual dispute over the prior attorney's authority to stipulate to the dismissal of the claims, making it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
The trial court had relied on the proposition that parties are deemed bound by the acts of their lawyers. Gomez v. An arrestee sued for false arrest in violation of his federal civil rights. Further, such obstruction requires a physical or independently unlawful action. A new trial was therefore ordered. Uzoukwu v. Krawiecki,U. A couple and their three children, driving home from a family outing, were stopped by two deputies one female and one male.
The female deputy initiated the stop because she mistakenly believed that the vehicle was stolen. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on a false arrest claim against the female deputy because the arrest, which was without probable cause, was the result of her unreasonable conduct. Ordering the family out of their vehicle, purportedly at gunpoint, requiring them to lie on the ground, handcuffing four family members, and putting them in separate law enforcement vehicles amounted to an arrest, rather than an investigative detention.
The male deputy in the incident was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim as he could rely on information conveyed to him by the female deputy, which he did not know was mistaken. Because of disputed issues of material fact on an excessive force claim, neither the two deputies nor the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on that claim. The disputed issues included whether the deputies pointed loaded guns at the family and how a nine-year-old child was treated during the incident.
Maresca v. County of Bernalillo,U. The plaintiff, a U. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, claiming that FBI agents detained, interrogated, and tortured him over the course of four months in three countries in Africa. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, the federal appeals court stated that when the actions occurred during a terrorism investigation, "special factors" required hesitation in allowing a Bivens lawsuit for money damages.
Bivens actions are usually not favored in cases involving the military, national security, or intelligence gathering. Further, the U. Meshal v. Higgenbotham,U. In the course of investigating a reported disturbance in an apartment building parking lot, an officer knocked on an apartment door where it was possible the people involved in the disturbance had gone.
The man who answered the door denied any involvement in the earlier dispute and declined to identify himself. The officer reached inside the apartment, handcuffed the man, and arrested him on the basis of his refusal to provide biographical information or identity. A federal appeals court held that in the absence of exigent circumstances, an officer could not lawfully conduct the equivalent of a Terry investigative stop inside a man's residence.
But in this case, since the law on that subject was not clearly established, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim. Moore v. Pederson,U. A man told an officer that while he was sleeping his neighbor had entered his home, possibly by prying open a bathroom window, grabbed and threatened him, and put his hand down the front of his pants. When the officer questioned the neighbor, he allegedly said, without prompting, that he had not entered the man's bathroom or gotten into his pants.
The neighbor later denied having made these statements. The complainant identified the neighbor as the man who had assaulted him. The officer arrested the neighbor on a variety of charges and he was later acquitted. A federal appeals court found that the officer had probable cause for the arrest and that the officer abd the city were both immune from Indiana state law malicious prosecution claims.
A federal malicious prosecution claim could not go forward as the plaintiff did not allege a separate constitutional injury or show that the officer lacked probable cause or acted with malice. Howlett v. Hack,F. A motorist claimed that he was arrested for marijuana possession without probable cause when an officer found two leaves in his car during a consensual search during a traffic stop.
Charges were later dropped when a crime lab found that the leaves did not contain detectible amounts of Tetrahydrocannabinol THCthe active ingredient in marijuana. The officer, although eacorts mistaken, was entitled to qualified immunity esorts a false arrest claim, as a reasonable officer could believe dxvie the leaves found were marijuana, giving him probable cause.
New v. Denver,F. A claim for escrts warrantless arrest survived summary judgment, a federal appeals court ruled, because the plaintiffs, a female high school student and her family, provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute over whether or not, during an incident at school, the student had reached for an officer's gun and whether the officer knew that the student closed a gate, barring entrance to a school hallway. The court rejected the excessive force claim against the officer.
Even if his shove of the student was unnecessary, it was not unreasonable, and the officer's pulling of the student's arm was not a Fourth Amendment violation because escprts student was then trying to escape arrest, and the officer had a right to prevent her from doing so. Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha,U.
Lexis 1st Cir. The plaintiffs, who were illegal aliens, sought to pursue Bivens civil rights claims against federal border patrol agents who allegedly illegally stopped and arrested them. A federal appeals court, noting that it had not ly extended Bivens civil rights actions to include claims arising from civil immigration apprehensions and detentions, other than those involving excessive force, declined to do so. It further found that the comprehensive rules and remedies found in immigration statutes and regulations precluded "crafting" an implied damages remedy.
Allowing claims for damages in this context, which were likely to be minimal, would be unlikely to provide ificant additional deterrence to illegal acts, and the court also noted that there were serious separation of powers issues that would be implicated in trying to do so. De Escortd Paz v. Coy,U. Three officers were sued for ther involvement in the warrantless arrest of a vehicle passenger for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, charges which inn later dropped.
A federal appeals court held that iin judgment on the basis of qualified immunty was proper on a false arrest claim, as the officers had ih cause for the arrest because one officer saw the plaintiff throw a crack pipe out of his car window. Two of the arresting officers, however, were iin entitled to qualified immunity because they allegedly delayed seeking medical care when the passenger was shot in the genitals, acting with deliberate indifference and reporting his injury as a "laceration.
Valderrama v. Rousseau,Escots. A high school student was detained for 23 days while police investigated a schoolyard fight that caused the death of another student. A video of the fight showed a male student who punched the victim as he tried to stand up, and the plaintiff was identified as one of two assailants by an officer ased to the school, by another student, and by two school staff members, who all viewed the video. Charges initially made against the plaintiff were ultimately dropped when it was established that he was not involved in the incident.
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant officers, finding escprts they had probable cause to make the arrest on the basis of the identifications by those who viewed the video, so there was no false arrest. As to the length of the detention, it was not excessive or unreasonable, as there was no indication that any of the defendants imposed a deelay for improper motives such as punishing the plaintiff or "drumming up" evidence merely to justify his arrest.
Bailey v. City of Chicago,F. A group of advocates for homeless peopl were threatened with arrest and then arrested for loud daviw to protest an organized walk by elected officials and their supporters through a skid row area. They were charged under a state statute under which "willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character" other than a political meeting, is a misdemeanor.
A federal appals court found that, while the statute in question was davis facially escorhs, it was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff's behavior, or political meetings as occurred here. The statute was improperly applied in this case to a group's protest of a meeting of public officials and members of the public to discuss conditions in the skid row area. As to public meetings in which people assemble to consider "public ravie arrests of protestors are only allowable if a protestor engages in "threats, intimidations, or unlawful violence," not for non-violent political protest.
City of Los Angeles,F. Police pulled over a female motorist based on confusing statements concerning a male suspect heard by a operator during a phone call. The woman claimed that the officers ordered her out of her car at gunpoint, threw her on the ground, handcuffed her, and detained her for approximately ten minutes. The male suspect was not in the car. A federal appeals court upheld a denial of qualified immunity to the officers.
If the woman's version of the incident were true, the officers used excessive force against her despite the fact that she was clearly afraid and was completely cooperating with their orders. While there had been reasonable suspicion to make the stop, if the plaintiff's version of events were true, the incident turned into an unlawful arrest when the officers continued after determining that she was a woman alone in the car.
Brown v. Lewis,U. LewisFed. Police arrested esckrts man and jailed him for over 50 hours when they mistakenly thought he was a serial ank robber. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court then erroneously interpreted a motion to lift the stay and amend his complaint in the lawsuit against the city as a waiver of all but two of his several policy-or-practice claims against the escortss, and also improperly dismissed that lawsuit after erroneously treating the city's certification that it would indemnify the officers as an offer under Fed.
The lawsuit against the city was reinstated and the plaintiff was entitled to amend his complaint within 21 days after the city filed a responsive pleading after the stay was lifted. Swanigan v. A motorist, having driven to a store's parking lot and exited his car, was ordered to get back into his vehicle and show his driver'sregistration, and proof of insurance by an officer daive exited a police vehicle that pulled in behind him.
He was arrested for refusing to comply, and subsequently pled guilty to driving on a suspended or revoked. He argued in a lawsuit that the officer had no basis for ordering him to reenter his vehicle and that the order to do so constituted an unreasonable seizure. The federal appeals court rejected a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the conviction because a judgment in the plaintiff's favor would imply that the conviction was invalid.
Because the plaintiff had pled guilty, a finding of illegal seizure would have no relevance to the validity of the plea and subsequent sentence. Rollins escrts. Willett,F. A man at a legal casino presented what appeared to be an altered driver's while dxvie to collect a slot machine jackpot. He was briefly handcuffed, detained, and turned over to police. Each of these actions by an Illinois Gaming Board agent were carried out in the exercise of his statutory duties arising from his state employment, so he was entitled to sovereign immunity on false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress state law claims.
Even if he acted without probable cause, he did not act beyond the scope of his authority. The intermediate Illinois appeals court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the casino and casino security supervisor on a false imprisonment claim. Grainger v. Officers arrested everyone at a party at a residence for unlawful entry, based on the fact that the host had not finalized a rental agreement to live there, and therefore had no right to hold a party there.
A federal appeals court ruled that there was no probable escorys for the arrest in light of the undisputed fact that at the time of the arrests the officers knew that the guests had been invited there by a woman they reasonably believed to be a lawful resident. There also was no probable cause for a disorderly conduct arrest, as there was no evidence of any disturbance of sufficient magnitude to violate local law.
Because a supervising sergeant on the scene overstepped clear law by directing that the arrests be made, the District of Columbia was liable for negligent supervision. Wesby v. A mass arrest of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators was made after they walked onto a bridge roadway. The arrestees claimed that this violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The esscorts alleged that the officers directed their activity along the route that led to them entering the bridge. If the facts were as alleged, no reasonable officer could have believed that the warning to clear the roadway was sufficiently audible for the crowd to hear it. Further, the demonstrators alleged that the officers had retreated onto dvie bridge in a manner xavie could be reasonably understood to constitute a continuation of the officers' earlier practice of allowing the demonstrators to proceed in violation of traffic laws.
Garcia v. Does,U. Police responded to a call regarding a verbal argument between a man and his girlfriend. The man had locked the woman out, with her keys inside the apartment, but no physical attack had occurred. The man did not want to talk to the officers. One of them prevented him from closing the door, entered his home, and refused to leave. The man called his attorney and did not comply with a demand that he get off the phone. An officer told him that he was under arrest, and two officers each grabbed one of his wrists, resulting in a struggle on the floor.
The officers lacked consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances to enter the home, and they lacked probable cause to arrest him for theft of his girlfriend's keys. There was, however, a disputed issue of fact as to whether the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for disorderly conduct, as the arrestee denied that he had yelled at the officers.
Hawkins v. Mitchell,U. An officer had at least arguable probable cause to arrest a man for trespass for refusal to leave a bus stop after he was observed waiting there without getting on any bus, so escorhs officer was entitled to qualified immunity. While the plaintiff described being pepper sprayed as painful, there was insufficient evidence of more than "de minimus" minimal injury, so the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim.
The officer was not entitled, however, to qualified immunity on a retaliatory use of force claim, as he argued that the pepper spray had been used in retaliation for his protected First Amendment speech of asking for the officer's badge. Peterson v. Kopp,F. They claimed that incriminating statements they had made had been coerced. They were convicted in and incarcerated, but DNA and other evidence later showed that the beating and rape had not been committed by the five black and Hispanic teenagers, who were ages 14 to 16 at the time of the crime, but by another person, a convicted rapist and murderer who stated in a confession that he acted alone.
McRay v. City of New York, cv, U. Worried that a tractor-trailer stopped on the shoulder of a highway ramp posed a safety hazard, a state trooper approached and observed that the engine was running with no one visible in the cab.
Knocking on the door caused the driver to emerge from the sleeper area of the dqvie. His breath smelled of alcohol, his eyes appeared red and glassy, his speech was slurred and he admitted having consumed a "couple" of "small pitchers" of beer at a truck stop an hour before. He could not explain why he stopped on the ramp to sleep rather than going to a rest stop to feet away.
After he failed two sobriety tests, and almost lost his balance, he was arrested, and a breathalyzer recorded a. A jury acquitted him after a state court found probable cause for the arrest. A federal appeals court found that the state court finding of probable cause in the criminal proceeding did not preclude a federal civil rights lawsuit for false arrest.
Ohio, in its state law, did not give xavie courts the final word on probable cause, and the plaintiff escorta not had an opportunity to appeal the probable cause issue since he was acquitted. Bradley esorts. Reno,U. LexisFed App.
A man sued Chicago police who arrested him on drug possession charges, as well as solicitation of an unlawful act. After he spent 19 days in jail, the charges were dismissed for want of probable cause. The plaintiff and the officers had differing s of the events that led to his arrest, which did involve someone in the vicinity shouting "rocks," referring to drugs. In a false arrest, malicious prosecution, and illegal search lawsuit, a jury returned a verdict for the defendant officers.
A federal appeals court upheld the jury verdict. Altamirano,U. Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for making a warrantless arrest of a woman who was nursing her baby in her home and leading her out of her home based on an invalid recalled arrest warrant for failing to appear in court to contest a simple traffic violation.
Following a strip search and a body cavity search, she was held in jail overnight, which was the first time she had been separated from her infant. A federal appeals court found that no reasonable officer could actually believe that the warrantless arrest was lawful under the alleged facts. Bechman v. Davke,F. A deputy pulled a female motorist over for an expired vehicle registration sticker, and the date on the sticker was different rscorts that in the Secretary of State's records, so she was let go.
The deputy was later notified that the sticker was stolen, a felony offense, and went to the woman's home to arrest her, being met there by a second deputy. The woman's boyfriend, who owned the house, answered the door and refused to let the deputies enter without a warrant. The deputies said that they smelled an odor of burning marijuana from inside the home, and they attempted to enter, which the boyfriend resisted.
He was found with a half-burnt marijuana t and was charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, a charge that was later dismissed. The trial court held that the officers were not entitled david qualified immunity on false arrest and excessive force claims, as there had been no exigency justifying a warrantless entry, which violated a clearly established right.
A federal appeals court reversed, stating that there was "fractured" caselaw on whether detecting the smell of marijuana justified a warrantless entry, so that it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that a warrantless entry was not justified. White v. Stanley,U. An officer had probable cause to arrest a woman for violating a state open-container law even though the flask found under her car seat proved to be empty.
At the time, she was a passenger in her husband's car after midnight, and he was being arrested under a warrant. The officer's actions were reasonable in light of the time of day, the woman's non-cooperative attitude, excorts her repeatedly asking escorys urinate.