an officer had sufficient time to intercede or was capable of preventing the harm being caused by another officer is an issue of fact for the jury unless, considering all the evidence, a reasonable jury could not possibly conclude otherwise. 12 Fed.Appx. at 861 (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir.1994)). See Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll County Comm’rs, 159 Fed.Appx. 916, 920 (11th Cir.2005) (ruling that it is clearly established that an officer may be held liable for failing to intervene to stop an unlawful arrest); Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1136 (10th Cir.1996) (“[A] law enforcement official who fails to intervene to prevent another law enforcement official’s use of excessive force may be liable under § 1983.”); Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); O’Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9, 11 (2d
holding that officers have a duty to intervene where a citizen has been unjustifiably arrested recognizing that police officers generally do not need warrant to search person they have lawfully arrested holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting holding that officers reasonable mistake as to a suspects identity entitled the officers to do what the law would have allowed had the correct suspect been arrested ie perform a search incident to arrest holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted