Martin A. Schwartz How Courts Determine the Constitutionality of Police Use of Deadly Force
In determining "objective reasonableness" in police use of deadly force cases, Martin Schwartz looks at the Tenth Circuit's recent decision in' Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City,' which carefully analyzes the critical issues involved.
February 28, 2022 at 12:10 PM
11 minute read
The police in the United States kill approximately 1,100 individuals per year, about three per day. These numbers have not changed even after national protests following the police killing of George Floyd. (Tim Arango and Giulia Heyward, Despite Protests, Number of Police Encounters is Unchanged, N.Y. Times, Dec. 25, 2021 p. A15, col. 1). Although few police killings result in criminal prosecutions, many are the subject of §1983 Fourth Amendment claims filed in the federal courts.
Whether police use of deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment depends on its objective reasonableness. This reasonableness determination is based on the facts and circumstances facing the officer. But which facts and circumstances are relevant, and how much weight should they be accorded? The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City, 16 F.4th 744 (10th Cir. 2021) carefully analyzes these critical issues.
This content has been archived.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
For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute read
Impact of New NYS Workers’ Compensation Work-Related Stress Relief on Discrimination Claims
Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 16-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
- 2'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
- 3Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
- 4The Power of Student Prior Knowledge in Legal Education
- 5Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
