Staffa v. Court of Appeals

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a reasonable officer faced with these facts, and without guidance from the courts, was not on notice that the use of a flash-bang was unconstitutional”
• holding that officers had employed “constitutionally excessive” force by “blindly” throwing a flash bang grenade into an apartment occupied by five to eight individuals
• holding that officers had employed “constitutionally excessive” force by “blindly” throwing a flash bang grenade into an apartment occupied by five to eight individuals
• holding that an entire team of officers was responsible for the use of a flash-bang because it was 30 HUGHES V. RODRIGUEZ part of their “search operation”
• finding that officers were “integral participants” where each officer involved “knew of the plan . . . , did not object to that plan, and actively participated in its operation
• holding bystander 5 having no role in unlawful conduct has no duty to intervene

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).