Carabajal v City of Cheyenne

Carabajal appealed summary judgment to City and two police officers in his excessive force and unlawful seizure claims. The panel, with one judge concurring in part, affirmed. It held that the video of the shooting clearly showed that Carbajal got out the car, got back in and, after being warned the officers would shoot if he moved the car, drove the car towards the officers, shooting was a reasonable response in the situation and there was no clearly established law that shooting in those circumstances violated the 4th Amendment and his claim based on his removal form the car was also defeated by the video evidence showing no propulsion of Carbajal to the ground nor shoving or dragging his body. The majority also affirmed the claim involving Carbajal’s infant son holding circuit law was not clear on whether a passenger injured when an officer shoots into a car faces liability at the time of the shooting. The panel finally affirmed judgment to City on the negligent hiring count holding it investigated the shooting officer’s background before hiring him and there was nothing to put City on notice that the officer would use unreasonable force. The partial concurrence argued that the judgment on the son should have been affirmed on the grounds that the shooting was reasonable.

Washington v United Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas

Washington appealed summary judgment to Government in his constitutional and contractual claims arising from his termination for failing a random drug test. The panel affirmed. It held the specific balance of interests here favored Government’s use of random drug tests as Washington was a juvenile lieutenant who was required to intervene in fights and cover for others in transporting and supervising juvenile detainees, Government has an interest in protecting the safety of the detainees by preventing drug use by security personnel, preventing drugs from coming into the secured facility and to use random tests to advance these interests while Washington has diminished expectations of privacy as corrections official and the urine test here was done in a way that minimally invasive. It affirmed judgment on Washington’s due process claims as he failed to prove he was anything but an at will employee and failed to identify any liberty interest involved here. It finally affirmed on the contract claim holding he failed to prove anything beyond an at will contract.