Prolonged and Wrongful Detention Cases

Young v. City of Irving

No. 3:23-CV-1423-D (N.D. Tex. 2024) · Sep 12, 2024

Granted motions to dismiss pro se plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the City of Irving and police officers but granted leave to replead; held that video evidence contradicting the plaintiff's allegations of unlawful arrest and excessive force entitled officers to qualified immunity, and that municipal liability claims based on conclusory allegations of policy or custom failed.

Esquivel v. Eastburn

No. SA-20-CV-00377-OLG (W.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2021) · Apr 28, 2021

A pro se plaintiff's § 1983 claims against state troopers for unlawful arrest, illegal search, and excessive force survived initial screening but were subject to dismissal where the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims against certain defendants.

Turner v. Driver

848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) · Feb 16, 2017

The First Amendment protects the right to record the police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions — and this right is clearly established going forward in the Fifth Circuit.

Michalik v. Hermann

422 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) · Aug 17, 2005

Officers who neither prepared nor presented a search warrant application cannot be held liable under Malley v. Briggs for the warrant's lack of probable cause; only the affiant or the person who actually prepared the application may be liable.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

532 U.S. 318 (2001) · Apr 24, 2001

The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless custodial arrest for a minor criminal offense — even a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine — as long as the officer has probable cause.

Gladden v. Roach

864 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1989) · Jan 17, 1989

Routine booking questions seeking biographical information (name, address, date of birth) do not constitute interrogation under the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, so an arrestee has no constitutional right to refuse to answer them; however, detention for 87 hours before arraignment violated the arrestee's rights.

Terry v. Ohio

392 U.S. 1 (1968) · Jun 10, 1968

A police officer may briefly stop and pat down a person for weapons if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous.