This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
29
caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the
suspect has committed, is committing, or is about t o commit an
offense.‘‖ Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 314 (4th Cir.
1992) (quoting Michigan v. De Fillippo, 443 U.S. 31 , 37 (1979)).
―Thus, the appropriate question is whether a reasona ble police
officer could have believed that arresting [the sus pect] was
lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information
the officers possessed. ‖ Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 290
(4th Cir. 2001).
Even if probable cause supports a warrantless arres t, the
Fourth Amendment‘s protections also ―include[] the right to be
free of ‗ seizures effectuated by excessive force. ‘‖ Henry, 2011
WL 2725816, at *4 (quoting Schultz v. Braga, 455 F. 3d 470, 476
(4th Cir. 2006)). In determining whether an arrest involved
excessive force, ―courts determine ‗whether the off icers‘
actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them, without regard to t heir
underlying intent or motivation. ‘‖ Id. (quoting Graham, 490
U.S. at 397). In addressing whether an officer‘s actions are
objectively reasonable, a court weighs the nature o f the
intrusion o n the plaintiff‘s Fourth Amendment rights ― against
the countervailing governmental interests at stake, ‖ which
requires an assessment of the severity of the predi cate crime,
the immediate threat posed by the arrestee, and whe ther he or Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)