Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the temporary seizure of a motorist for the purpose of alleviating dangerous roadside conditions could be a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function
• observing that the question is not “whether there was a seizure” because, “under the community caretaking doctrine, police action can be constitutional notwithstanding the fact that it constitutes a seizure.”
• applying community caretaker exception to officer’s decision to order motorist to push car off road as it was obstructing traffic
• “[W]hile this court and the Supreme Court have discussed the state-created danger theory, neither has ever found the theory actionable on the facts given.”
• “No properly instructed jury could have found a violation of constitutional rights on the evidence.”
• “The ultimate inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the officer acted ‘within the realm of reason.’ Reasonableness does not depend on any particular factor; the court must take into account the various facts of the case at hand.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).