Opinion ID: 797053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: 75 If a jury credits Russo's evidence regarding DePietro's and Borona's conduct, and if it finds that the videotape provided adequate verification of Russo's innocence based on his unique physical characteristics, then Russo will have established that he was unreasonably seized by DePietro and Borona, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Russo's long incarceration for the crime of another, in the face of exculpatory evidence that was ignored or actively suppressed, would amount to no less than a decided lack of solicitude [] for the liberty of [the City's] citizens, Young v. City of Little Rock, 249 F.3d 730, 735 (8th Cir.2001). Moreover, the validity of DePietro's and Borona's assertion of qualified immunity cannot be determined at the summary judgment stage. As such, the district court's grant of summary judgment to DePietro and Borona must be vacated. In addition, given DePietro's and Borona's possible violation of Russo's constitutional rights, and the City's admission that these officers were acting in accordance with custom, policy and practice, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City must also be vacated. On the other hand, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants Sherbo and Rosa. 76 Accordingly, this case is AFFIRMED in part, and VACATED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings. Costs are awarded to the appellant.