In April the Supreme Court of United States decided Kisela v.Hughes, 584 US ____ (2018), and the opinion is already the center of a debate.In this case, not only did the majority find that Officer Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity for his use of deadly force, but it also went on to criticize (to the point of expressing disappointment) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for its reasoning. Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to Chadwick, he had only seconds to assess the danger, Hughes had just been seen hacking a tree, and she failed to acknowledge two commands to drop the knife, which were loud enough for her roommate to hear. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. The other officers did not use force. Tucson police officer Andrew Kisela shot and wounded Amy Hughes in 2010, while responding to a … In Kisela v. Hughes, Amy Hughes sued Officer Andrew Kisela under 42 U.S.C. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam); White v. Pauly, 137 S.Ct. Kisela and two other officers at the scene said they believed Hughes was a threat to the other woman, who turned out to be Hughes’ roommate. Justice Sotomayor said the court’s decision in the case, Kisela v. Hughes, No. 862 F.3d 775 - HUGHES v. KISELA, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The wounded woman, Amy Hughes, had accused Kisela of using excessive force in the 2010 incident in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth … In fact, let me quote her final paragraph now. Police Corporal Andrew Kisela heard a report over police radio about a woman using a kitchen knife to hack a tree and acting erratically in public. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Hughes, that is what happened in this case.

Kisela v. Hughes concerns the legal concept of qualified immunity. The other officers did not use force. Today's "dog bites man" story from the Supreme Court is a summary reversal in Kisela v.Hughes, the latest reversal of a Ninth Circuit opinion that had denied qualified immunity to a police officer.An Arizona police officer shot a woman who was holding a kitchen knife because he (seemingly mistakenly) believed that she was a threat to her roommate, who was standing about six feet away. On those facts, the panel held, no reasonable police officer could have thought that shooting Hughes was constitutionally permissible. § 1983 for allegedly using excessive force and therefore violating her civil rights as provided for in the Fourth Amendment. Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. __ (United States Supreme Court, April 2, 2018) Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. § 1983 for allegedly using excessive force and therefore violating her civil rights as provided for in the Fourth Amendment. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. I will recount, crudely, the facts in that case which today stands as precedent, and then print Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam).

2016).

Three officers responded and all drew their weapons upon seeing Hughes come out of a house, holding the knife. 864 F.3d 1010 - S.B.

Today's "dog bites man" story from the Supreme Court is a summary reversal in Kisela v.Hughes, the latest reversal of a Ninth Circuit opinion that … Tucson police officer Andrew Kisela shot and wounded Amy Hughes in 2010, while responding to a …