Putman v. Harris

6 Citing cases

  1. Armstrong v. Hutcheson

    80 F.4th 508 (4th Cir. 2023)   Cited 8 times

    The only remaining question is whether that conduct was objectively reasonable, which is a question of law, not fact."); Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) ("At the summary judgment stage, once we have viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the question of whether the officer's actions were reasonable is a question of pure law."); Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023) ("To determine whether the force used was excessive, we apply a standard of objective reasonableness. This is a question of law, which we judge from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene."

  2. Amisi v. Lakeyta Brooks

    93 F.4th 659 (4th Cir. 2024)   Cited 14 times
    Explaining § 1983 liability for setting in motion acts by others which the defendant "know or reasonably should know" will result in constitutional injury

    We review the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023).

  3. Harrold v. Hagen

    Civil Action 3:23cv866 (E.D. Va. Sep. 27, 2024)

    When confronted directly, Mr. Harrold engaged in passive, not active, resistance. Cf Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181,188 (4th Cir. 2023);

  4. Putman v. Harris

    1:20CV00063 (W.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2024)

    Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 188 (4th Cir. 2023) (finding that Harris acted reasonably in releasing the dog to attack the defendant). In obedience to the court of appeals' decision, I entered judgment in favor of defendant Harris.

  5. West v. Police Officer Powers

    Civil Action MJM-22-1685 (D. Md. Sep. 29, 2023)

    . “[T]he Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures bars police officers from using excessive force to seize a free citizen.” Smith v. Murphy, 634 Fed.Appx. 914, 916 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[Officers can't use excessive force to carry out a seizure.”). “A claim that a police officer employed excessive force is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment under an ‘objective reasonableness' standard.”

  6. Floyd v. Knight

    2:21-cv-03288-RMG-MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2023)

    Based on the foregoing, under the “totality of the circumstances known to [Smith] at the time of the [detainment],” it was reasonable for Smith to believe that Plaintiff had committed a trespass offense. See Brown, 278 F.3d at 367; see also Putman v. Harris, No. 22-1360, 2023 WL 2994158, at *4 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (