EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
On June 6, 2017, in Lowry v City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, i...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Boston College law review 2018-01, Vol.59 (9), p.1-23 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 23 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Boston College law review |
| container_volume | 59 |
| creator | Dobrott, Natasha |
| description | On June 6, 2017, in Lowry v City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the context of "bite and hold" training for police dogs. This Comment argues that although the use of force in Lowry may have been reasonable, the court was incorrect in deciding this question as a matter of law. The fact-intensive objective reasonableness test should only be resolved through summary judgment on those rare occasions where the facts of the situation are not in dispute and the answer is clear as a matter of law. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2032378984</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2032378984</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20323789843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNi8tuwjAURK2qSKTQf7hSt6RyEjBJd5F9kxgRG8V2gRXqgi4Q4pXSX-hv40btnsVopHNmHkgQZQkNGYtWjySgEYtCNkmnffLUtjtKKWNZHJAfXHE0Rr4jFLrhOIKFnkuOIHRpRpArAbb6da6xFeQ1KuFjQaqOK6k85rLhTtq3DjmDoAswrq7zZg0zJ0r8v8z10qPvV_-w626VKxASSz0kvc-Pfbt9_usBeSnQ8io8XY7n67b92uyO18vBq01MkziZplk6Tu5b3QAs4Uah</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2032378984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Dobrott, Natasha</creator><creatorcontrib>Dobrott, Natasha</creatorcontrib><description>On June 6, 2017, in Lowry v City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the context of "bite and hold" training for police dogs. This Comment argues that although the use of force in Lowry may have been reasonable, the court was incorrect in deciding this question as a matter of law. The fact-intensive objective reasonableness test should only be resolved through summary judgment on those rare occasions where the facts of the situation are not in dispute and the answer is clear as a matter of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-6587</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-661X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Newton Centre: Boston College School of Law</publisher><subject>Constitution-US ; Constitutional law ; Court decisions ; Deadly force ; Excessive force ; Federal court decisions ; Law enforcement ; Police ; Police dogs ; Search & seizure ; State court decisions ; Summary judgment ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Boston College law review, 2018-01, Vol.59 (9), p.1-23</ispartof><rights>Copyright Boston College School of Law 2018</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dobrott, Natasha</creatorcontrib><title>EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO</title><title>Boston College law review</title><description>On June 6, 2017, in Lowry v City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the context of "bite and hold" training for police dogs. This Comment argues that although the use of force in Lowry may have been reasonable, the court was incorrect in deciding this question as a matter of law. The fact-intensive objective reasonableness test should only be resolved through summary judgment on those rare occasions where the facts of the situation are not in dispute and the answer is clear as a matter of law.</description><subject>Constitution-US</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Deadly force</subject><subject>Excessive force</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Police dogs</subject><subject>Search & seizure</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Summary judgment</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0161-6587</issn><issn>1930-661X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNi8tuwjAURK2qSKTQf7hSt6RyEjBJd5F9kxgRG8V2gRXqgi4Q4pXSX-hv40btnsVopHNmHkgQZQkNGYtWjySgEYtCNkmnffLUtjtKKWNZHJAfXHE0Rr4jFLrhOIKFnkuOIHRpRpArAbb6da6xFeQ1KuFjQaqOK6k85rLhTtq3DjmDoAswrq7zZg0zJ0r8v8z10qPvV_-w626VKxASSz0kvc-Pfbt9_usBeSnQ8io8XY7n67b92uyO18vBq01MkziZplk6Tu5b3QAs4Uah</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Dobrott, Natasha</creator><general>Boston College School of Law</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO</title><author>Dobrott, Natasha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20323789843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Constitution-US</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Deadly force</topic><topic>Excessive force</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Police dogs</topic><topic>Search & seizure</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Summary judgment</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dobrott, Natasha</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Boston College law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dobrott, Natasha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO</atitle><jtitle>Boston College law review</jtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>23</epage><pages>1-23</pages><issn>0161-6587</issn><eissn>1930-661X</eissn><abstract>On June 6, 2017, in Lowry v City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the context of "bite and hold" training for police dogs. This Comment argues that although the use of force in Lowry may have been reasonable, the court was incorrect in deciding this question as a matter of law. The fact-intensive objective reasonableness test should only be resolved through summary judgment on those rare occasions where the facts of the situation are not in dispute and the answer is clear as a matter of law.</abstract><cop>Newton Centre</cop><pub>Boston College School of Law</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0161-6587 |
| ispartof | Boston College law review, 2018-01, Vol.59 (9), p.1-23 |
| issn | 0161-6587 1930-661X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2032378984 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Constitution-US Constitutional law Court decisions Deadly force Excessive force Federal court decisions Law enforcement Police Police dogs Search & seizure State court decisions Summary judgment Supreme Court decisions |
| title | EXCESSIVE FORCE, POLICE DOGS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT: THE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN LOWRY v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T19%3A01%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EXCESSIVE%20FORCE,%20POLICE%20DOGS,%20AND%20THE%20FOURTH%20AMENDMENT%20IN%20THE%20NINTH%20CIRCUIT:%20THE%20USE%20OF%20SUMMARY%20JUDGEMENT%20IN%20LOWRY%20v.%20CITY%20OF%20SAN%20DIEGO&rft.jtitle=Boston%20College%20law%20review&rft.au=Dobrott,%20Natasha&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=23&rft.pages=1-23&rft.issn=0161-6587&rft.eissn=1930-661X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2032378984%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2032378984&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |