Eighth Circuit: Videos, Police Report Are Not Dispositive at Rule 12 Stage of Whether Officer's Shootings of Dogs Were Objectively Reasonable
In 'LeMay v. Mays', the court provided guidance regarding the role of videorecordings and police reports as evidence at the Rule 12 stage, holding that a police officer who shot two dogs during a residential security check was not entitled to qualified immunity.
December 16, 2021 at 12:45 PM
7 minute read
In LeMay v. Mays (No. 20-2632), the Eighth Circuit provided guidance regarding the role of videorecordings and police reports as evidence at the Rule 12 stage, holding that a police officer who shot two dogs during a residential security check was not entitled to qualified immunity. The officer argued that the court should consider certain materials, including two videos of the incident and the police report about it, at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Eighth Circuit concluded that because the videos did not clearly and completely contradict the complaint's allegations that the officer shot the dogs when they presented no imminent danger to him and were not acting aggressively, dismissal was premature. Because officer's police report was submitted to show the truth of the matters the officer had asserted in it, its use at this stage was impermissible.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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'Truth Still Prevails': In Age of Disinformation, Defamation Attorneys Score Landmark Jury Verdict
Boies Schiller Company Loses Appeal: Could Owe 7 Figures in Attorney Fees
Defense Counsel Can't Use Unrelated Lawsuit to Impeach Expert Witness Testimony, Judge Rules
Trending Stories
- 1The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 2Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 3Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
- 5Justices Will Hear First Amendment Challenge to Denial of Tax Exemption for Catholic Charities
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