Wasserman v. Rodacker

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 suspect’s lack of “bruise or injury . . . tends to confirm that [the officer] did not use more force than reasonably appeared necessary to secure [the suspect’s] compliance”
• holding that even though plaintiff “was not moving or offering any resistance” after the officer initiated arrest, the officer was authorized to use “some degree of physical coercion when arresting [the] suspect”
• holding that even though plaintiff “was not moving or offering any resistance” after the officer initiated arrest, the officer was authorized to use “some degree of physical coercion when arresting [the] suspect”
• finding that probable cause to arrest existed where it was an “uncontested fact that [the officer] observed” the defendant in violation of a dog leash regulation
• stating that lack of “bruise or injury, . . . tends to confirm that [the arresting officer] did not use more force than reasonably appeared necessary”
• finding that even wrenching suspect’s arm during arrest was reasonable because “[p]olice officers have authority to use ‘some degree of physical coercion’ when arresting a suspect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).