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
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by Judge Martin. I also join Judge Guy’s concurring opinion.