Marquez v. Albuquerque, City of

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the district court’s ruling that “testimony regarding law enforcement standards was both irrelevant and confusing on the ground that the violation of such standards is not ipso facto a Fourth Amendment violation”
• noting officers need not “use the least intrusive means” during an investigative detention
• Affirming the district court’s judgment as a matter of law because, “a jury could rationally reach the conclusion that [officer]…acted reasonably when, after warning [plaintiff] to halt, he ordered his police service dog to apprehend [plaintiff]”
• officer acted reasonably in using canine to apprehend fleeing suspect after high-speed chase because the officer first warned the suspect to halt
• jury “could rationally reach the conclusion that [law enforcement] . . . acted reasonably when, after warning [plaintiff] to halt, he ordered his police service dog to apprehend [plaintiff]”
• On juror-misconduct claims, the inquiry is “whether they discussed specific extra-record facts relating to the defendant, and if they did, whether there was a significant possibility that the defendant was prejudiced thereby.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).