The following excerpt is from Brown v. Grinder, No. 2:13-cv-01007-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2019):
"Where actual deliberation is practical, then an officer's 'deliberate indifference' may suffice to shock the conscience." Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010). "On the other hand, where a law enforcement officer makes a snap judgment because of an escalating situation, his conduct may only be found to shock the conscience if he acts with a purpose to harm unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives." Id. Under the purpose to harm standard, the court looks at the totality of the circumstances to assess whether a jury could reasonably infer any of the officers were acting for purposes other than legitimate law enforcement. Porter, 546 F.3d at 1141.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.