finding that qualified immunity was a question of fact for the jury in light of competing inferences that could be drawn from the facts at issue and their effect on the question of whether an officer’s actions were objectively unreasonable
How later courts described this case
- finding that qualified immunity was a question of fact for the jury in light of competing inferences that could be drawn from the facts at issue and their effect on the question of whether an officer’s actions were objectively unreasonable
- noting that courts determining whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable should consider “the ‘information possessed’ by the officer, without regard to the officer's subjective beliefs and without regard to facts not known by the officer at the time of the incident”
- affirming denial of summary judgment when the plaintiff lived to contradict the police officer’s version of the events before the shooting
- considering testimony to be sufficient to support inference that discredited officer’s account
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GUY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the affirmance of the district judge’s decision to deny defendant’s motion based upon a claim of qualified immunity. It cannot be said at this stage that defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.
I would leave it at that, however, and not parse the parties various contentions as to what actually occurred. We have only the record that was before the court at the summary judgment stage, which might differ from what the parties present at a trial. I do not join in those parts of Judge Martin’s opinion that might be read to suggest what the outcome would be if one party or the other prevailed on their pre-trial contentions.