Stephen Masciocchi, left, and Tina Van Bockern, right, of Holland & Hart. Courtesy photos Tenth Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity Defense in Section 1983 Suit Arising out of George Floyd Protests
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected three police officers' qualified immunity defenses. The court determined it was clearly established that police cannot shoot nonlethal projectiles at protesters who committed no serious crime, were not a threat, and were not attempting to flee.
December 14, 2023 at 04:09 PM
6 minute read
Analysis
In an interlocutory appeal involving alleged excessive force by police during protests over the murder of George Floyd, Packard v. Budaj, — F.4th –, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30189 (Nov. 14, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected three police officers' qualified immunity defenses. The court determined it was clearly established that police cannot shoot nonlethal projectiles at protesters who committed no serious crime, were not a threat, and were not attempting to flee.
Factual Background
On the evening of May 31, protesters gathered in downtown Denver in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Police threw a tear gas cannister near one plaintiff, Zachary Packard, who kicked it away from himself and toward the line of officers. Almost immediately, he was hit in the head with a canon-fired beanbag round, which knocked him unconscious and caused major injuries. In a second incident nearby, plaintiff Jonathon Duran was shot with a foam baton round while wearing a "media" hat and filming the protest. The officers who allegedly shot the rounds that injured the plaintiffs worked for the Aurora Police Department, which had responded to the Denver mayor's request for mutual aid.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Adding 'Credibility' to the Pitch: The Cross-Selling Work After Mergers, Office Openings
5 minute read
Law Firms Are 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 2Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 3Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 4Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 5Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
