Jamie Becker v. Zachary Effriechs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was unreasonable to allow a dog to continue biting a suspect who attempted to surrender
• recognizing that, prior to 2011, “it was well-established in this circuit that police officers could not use significant force on nonresisting or passively resisting suspects” (quoting Abbott, 705 F.3d at 732)
• holding that continuation of dog-bite seizure constituted excessive force but emphasizing that the case did “not involve a split-second delay between the officer pulling [the suspect] to the ground and directing” the dog to end the seizure
• holding that continuation of dog-bite seizure constituted excessive force but emphasizing that the case did “not involve a split-second delay between the officer pulling [the suspect] to the ground and directing” the dog to end the seizure
• emphasizing that it is “well‐estab‐ lished that police officers cannot continue to use force once a No. 18‐1514 13 suspect is subdued”
• emphasizing that it is “well-estab- lished that police officers cannot continue to use force once a No. 18-1514 13 suspect is subdued”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).