v. City of Chicago, 830 F.2d 706 (7th Cir.1987); Black v. Stephens, 662 F.2d 181 (3d Cir.1981) (upholding jury verdict against police officer who, without justification, brandished his revolver eighteen inches from a motorist’s head, with the motorist’s wife in the precise line of fire, and then threatened to shoot), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1008, 102 S.Ct. 1646, 71 L.Ed.2d 876 (1982), we have never adopted this approach and we need not decide the propriety of such an approach in the instant case. The facts here simply do not demonstrate egregious governmental conduct. Second, Mr. Bella’s complaint makes no allegations of improper motives or malice. Nor can malice be inferred from the officers’ actions of firing at and boxing in the Gazelle helicopter. See Landoh-Rivera, 906 F.2d at 797 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Mr. Bella concedes that the officers
holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another holding that the officer had reasonable belief that the occupants of the vehicle were armed where the officer knew that drug dealers are frequently armed and therefore frisk of the vehicle was permissible holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search holding that where the fleeing suspect was armed had threatened to kill his hostage and had commandeered a car and abducted its driver the decision to shoot toward the hijacked vehicle by itself falls far short of demonstrating reckless or callous indifference toward the hostages rights holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search