In which case is a police officer not liable for use of excessive force?

The case of Fraire v. City of Arlington is significant in the context of police liability for excessive force because the court ultimately ruled that the police officer involved was entitled to qualified immunity. This immunity allows law enforcement officials to avoid liability in civil suits for actions taken while performing their official duties, provided that those actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

In Fraire v. City of Arlington, the context surrounding the officer's actions was evaluated, including the circumstances leading up to the use of force, such as the behavior of the suspect and the perceived threat to officer safety and public safety. When determining whether excessive force was used, the court focused on the officer's perspective at the moment the actions were taken, factoring in the need for split-second decisions in high-stress situations.

This ruling contrasts with the other cases mentioned, which either established standards for evaluating excessive force, like Graham v. Connor, or dealt with different legal principles unrelated to police liability. Understanding the implications of qualified immunity, as demonstrated in Fraire v. City of Arlington, helps clarify under what conditions police officers may be protected from excessive force claims.