The Ninth Circuit gives the plaintiffs in this case some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that they get to go to trial on the theory that they shouldn't have been detained in handcuffs for five hours. Which is nice, since all they were doing was hanging around before school listening to rap music and getting on their school uniforms.
The bad news is that they don't get to seek relief for something far more serious: Getting shot in the back by a police officer for no good reason. Yes, it violated the Constitution. Yes, a police officer should not shoot someone in the back, even if he has a plastic airsoft gun (with an orange tip) that's not being pointed at anyone as he and his friends hang out before school. But the Ninth Circuit says that wasn't really clear before now, so there's qualified immunity.
So no relief for being shot. But feel free to get damages for the five hours you spent in handcuffs.
Small "victory".
