Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when foundational facts regarding a qualified immunity claim remain in dispute, these facts must be decided by the jury
• concluding that the 1 intrusion,” then turn to the governmental interests at stake: “(1) how severe the crime at issue is, 2 (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3
• noting that “the Fourth Amendment continues to protect an arrestee during the second 18 custodial stage, post-arrest but pre-arraignment”
• noting that “the Fourth Amendment continues to protect an arrestee during the 7 second custodial stage, post-arrest but pre-arraignment”
• noting that “the Fourth Amendment continues to protect an arrestee during the 10 second custodial stage, post-arrest but pre-arraignment”
• noting that “the Fourth Amendment 19 continues to protect an arrestee during the second custodial stage, post-arrest but pre- 20 arraignment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).