Thursday audio--Section A, Section B.
We continue Summary Judgment; I expect we can finish this next Wednesday. Make sure to read pp. 57-59 in Nunes v. Lizza; it offers nice synthesis of the summary judgment standard, incorporating the pieces we have discussed so far. Be ready to discuss the problems from Glannon p. 408, 409, and 417. Consider:
• How much evidence must the party offer to create a genuine dispute? How much uncertainty about the fact must there be?
• What form will the evidence take when presented to support and oppose a motion? What evidence did Mrs. Catrett offer and what were the problems with it?
• Can the Non-Movant oppose summary judgment based on the possibility of disbelief of the Movant's evidence? In Adickes, had the officer denied presence, could Adickes oppose summary judgment by arguing the jury might disbelieve the officer?
• What is required for a valid affidavit? Does it matter that the affidavit is self-serving? What should the court do if one person's affidavit and deposition diverge. Imagine:
Adickes Deposition: The student told me the officer was in the store. I didn't see anyone.
Adickes Affidavit: I saw the officer in the store.
• How does substantive law affect the summary judgment analysis? What if substantive law requires clear-and-convincing evidence? What if, in Adickes, the plaintiff produces evidence of presence but not of communication or agreement--make the argument for defendant on summary judgment.
• Imagine the Court in Scott adopted a per se Fourth Amendment rule: A person fleeing police at high speeds is per se an imminent threat. How does that affect summary judgment in that case? How does it affect the argument that the video is not one-sided? (Watch the video, available in the Additional Materials Post).
Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston:
Salazar-Limon sues the City of Houston on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim arising from an officer shooting him during a traffic stop. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's use of force is justified if he reasonably feared an imminent threat to his life or safety. Courts have held that an officer can infer an imminent threat if a suspect reaches for his waistband.
Defendant moves for summary judgment. Argue both sides.
The record shows the following:
Undisputed Facts:
• Plaintiff was shot in the back
• Plaintiff did not have a gun.
Plaintiff Deposition:
I was walking away from the officer. He shot me immediately after or within seconds of commanding me to stop. I did not turn or have a chance to turn before I was shot; the shot came right after the command. I did not have anything in my waistband.
Officer Deposition:
The suspect raised his hands as if he were reaching for his waistband. I shot after he made the motion with his hands towards his waistband.
