City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. SHEEHAN

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 13–1412. Argued March 23, 2015—Decided May 18, 2015

Respondent Sheehan lived in a group home for individuals with mental

illness. After Sheehan began acting erratically and threatened to kill

her social worker, the City and County of San Francisco (San Fran-

cisco) dispatched police officers Reynolds and Holder to help escort

Sheehan to a facility for temporary evaluation and treatment. When

the officers first entered Sheehan’s room, she grabbed a knife and

threatened to kill them. They retreated and closed the door. Con-

cerned about what Sheehan might do behind the closed door, and

without considering if they could accommodate her disability, the of-

ficers reentered her room. Sheehan, knife in hand, again confronted

them. After pepper spray proved ineffective, the officers shot

Sheehan multiple times. Sheehan later sued petitioner San Francis-

co for, among other things, violating Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by arresting her without accommodat-

ing her disability. See 42 U. S. C. §12132. She also sued petitioners

Reynolds and Holder in their personal capacities under 42 U. S. C.

§1983, claiming that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

The District Court granted summary judgment because it concluded

that officers making an arrest are not required to determine whether

their actions would comply with the ADA before protecting them-

selves and others, and also that Reynolds and Holder did not violate

the Constitution. Vacating in part, the Ninth Circuit held that the

ADA applied and that a jury must decide whether San Francisco

should have accommodated Sheehan. The court also held that Reyn-

olds and Holder are not entitled to qualified immunity because it is

clearly established that, absent an objective need for immediate en-

try, officers cannot forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill

2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Syllabus

person who has been acting irrationally and has threatened anyone

who enters.

Held:

1. The question whether §12132 “requires law enforcement officers

to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill

suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody,” Pet. for

Cert. i, is dismissed as improvidently granted. Certiorari was grant-

ed on the understanding that San Francisco would argue that Title II

of the ADA does not apply when an officer faces an armed and dan-

gerous individual. Instead, San Francisco merely argues that

Sheehan was not “qualified” for an accommodation, §12132, because

she “pose[d] a direct threat to the health or safety of others,” which

threat could not “be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices

or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services,” 28

CFR §§35.139(a), 35.104. This argument was not passed on by the

court below. The decision to dismiss this question as improvidently

granted, moreover, is reinforced by the parties’ failure to address the

related question whether a public entity can be vicariously liable for

damages under Title II for an arrest made by its police officers.

Pp. 7–10.

2. Reynolds and Holder are entitled to qualified immunity from lia-

bility for the injuries suffered by Sheehan. Public officials are im-

mune from suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 unless they have “violated a

statutory or constitutional right that was ‘ “ ‘clearly established’ ” ’ at

the time of the challenged conduct,” Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S.

___, ___, an exacting standard that “gives government officials

breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments,” Ash-

croft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The officers did not violate the

Fourth Amendment when they opened Sheehan’s door the first time,

and there is no doubt that they could have opened her door the sec-

ond time without violating her rights had Sheehan not been disabled.

Their use of force was also reasonable. The only question therefore is

whether they violated the Fourth Amendment when they decided to

reopen Sheehan’s door rather than attempt to accommodate her dis-

ability. Because any such Fourth Amendment right, even assuming

it exists, was not clearly established, Reynolds and Holder are enti-

tled to qualified immunity. Likewise, an alleged failure on the part of

the officers to follow their training does not itself negate qualified

immunity where it would otherwise be warranted. Pp. 10–17.

Certiorari dismissed in part; 743 F. 3d 1211, reversed in part and re-

manded.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,

and KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA,

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

Syllabus

J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which

KAGAN, J., joined. BREYER, J., took no part in the consideration or deci-

sion of the case.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 13–1412

_________________

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.

TERESA SHEEHAN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 18, 2015]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to consider two questions relating

to the manner in which San Francisco police officers ar-

rested a woman who was suffering from a mental illness

and had become violent. After reviewing the parties’

submissions, we dismiss the first question as improvidently

granted. We decide the second question and hold that

the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because

they did not violate any clearly established Fourth

Amendment rights.

I

Petitioners are the City and County of San Francisco,

California (San Francisco), and two police officers, Ser-

geant Kimberly Reynolds and Officer Kathrine Holder.

Respondent is Teresa Sheehan, a woman who suffers from

a schizoaffective disorder. Because this case arises in a

summary judgment posture, we view the facts in the light

most favorable to Sheehan, the nonmoving party. See,

e.g., Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014)

(slip op., at 1–2).

2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

In August 2008, Sheehan lived in a group home for

people dealing with mental illness. Although she shared

common areas of the building with others, she had a pri-

vate room. On August 7, Heath Hodge, a social worker

who supervised the counseling staff in the building, at-

tempted to visit Sheehan to conduct a welfare check.

Hodge was concerned because Sheehan had stopped tak-

ing her medication, no longer spoke with her psychiatrist,

and reportedly was no longer changing her clothes or

eating. See 743 F. 3d 1211, 1218 (CA9 2014); App. 23–24.

Hodge knocked on Sheehan’s door but received no an-

swer. He then used a key to enter her room and found

Sheehan on her bed. Initially, she would not respond to

questions. But she then sprang up, reportedly yelling,

“Get out of here! You don’t have a warrant! I have a

knife, and I’ll kill you if I have to.” Hodge left without

seeing whether she actually had a knife, and Sheehan

slammed the door shut behind him. See 743 F. 3d, at

1218.

Sheehan, Hodge realized, required “some sort of inter-

vention,” App. 96, but he also knew that he would need

help. Hodge took steps to clear the building of other peo-

ple and completed an application to have Sheehan de-

tained for temporary evaluation and treatment. See Cal.

Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §5150 (West 2015 Cum. Supp.)

(authorizing temporary detention of someone who “as a

result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or

to himself or herself, or gravely disabled”). On that appli-

cation, Hodge checked off boxes indicating that Sheehan

was a “threat to others” and “gravely disabled,” but he did

not mark that she was a danger to herself. 743 F. 3d, at

1218. He telephoned the police and asked for help to take

Sheehan to a secure facility.

Officer Holder responded to police dispatch and headed

toward the group home. When she arrived, Holder re-

viewed the temporary-detention application and spoke

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

Opinion of the Court

with Hodge. Holder then sought assistance from Sergeant

Reynolds, a more experienced officer. After Reynolds

arrived and was brought up to speed, Hodge spoke with a

nurse at the psychiatric emergency services unit at San

Francisco General Hospital who said that the hospital

would be able to admit Sheehan.

Accompanied by Hodge, the officers went to Sheehan’s

room, knocked on her door, announced who they were, and

told Sheehan that “we want to help you.” App. 36. When

Sheehan did not answer, the officers used Hodge’s key to

enter the room. Sheehan reacted violently. She grabbed a

kitchen knife with an approximately 5-inch blade and

began approaching the officers, yelling something along

the lines of “I am going to kill you. I don’t need help. Get

out.” Ibid. See also id., at 284 (“[Q.] Did you tell them I’ll

kill you if you don’t get out of here? A. Yes”). The offic-

ers—who did not have their weapons drawn—“retreated

and Sheehan closed the door, leaving Sheehan in her room

and the officers and Hodge in the hallway.” 743 F. 3d, at

1219. The officers called for backup and sent Hodge

downstairs to let in reinforcements when they arrived.

The officers were concerned that the door to Sheehan’s

room was closed. They worried that Sheehan, out of their

sight, might gather more weapons—Reynolds had already

observed other knives in her room, see App. 228—or even

try to flee through the back window, id., at 227. Because

Sheehan’s room was on the second floor, she likely would

have needed a ladder to escape. Fire escapes, however,

are common in San Francisco, and the officers did not

know whether Sheehan’s room had such an escape. (Nei-

ther officer asked Hodge about a fire escape, but if they

had, it seems he “probably” would have said there was

one, id., at 117). With the door closed, all that Reynolds

and Holder knew for sure was that Sheehan was unstable,

she had just threatened to kill three people, and she had a

4 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

weapon.1

Reynolds and Holder had to make a decision. They

could wait for backup—indeed, they already heard sirens.

Or they could quickly reenter the room and try to subdue

Sheehan before more time elapsed. Because Reynolds

believed that the situation “required [their] immediate

attention,” id., at 235, the officers chose reentry. In mak-

ing that decision, they did not pause to consider whether

Sheehan’s disability should be accommodated. See 743

F. 3d, at 1219. The officers obviously knew that Sheehan

was unwell, but in Reynolds’ words, that was “a secondary

issue” given that they were “faced with a violent woman

who had already threatened to kill her social worker” and

“two uniformed police officers.” App. 235.

The officers ultimately decided that Holder—the larger

officer—should push the door open while Reynolds used

pepper spray on Sheehan. With pistols drawn, the officers

moved in. When Sheehan, knife in hand, saw them, she

again yelled for them to leave. She may also have again

said that she was going to kill them. Sheehan is “not

sure” if she threatened death a second time, id., at 284,

but “concedes that it was her intent to resist arrest and to

use the knife,” 743 F. 3d, at 1220. In any event, Reynolds

began pepper-spraying Sheehan in the face, but Sheehan

would not drop the knife. When Sheehan was only a few

——————

1 The officers also may have feared that another person was with

Sheehan. Reynolds testified that the officers had not been “able to do a

complete assessment of the entire room.” App. 38. Sheehan, by con-

trast, testified during a deposition that the officers “could see . . . that

no one else was in the room.” Id., at 279. Before the Ninth Circuit,

Sheehan conceded that some of her deposition testimony “smacks of

irrationality that begs the question whether any of it is credible.” Brief

for Appellant in No. 11–16401 (CA9), p. 41; see also Reply Brief in No.

11–16401, p. 17 (explaining that “the inherent inconsistences in her

testimony cast suspicion over all of it”). We need not decide whether

there is a genuine dispute of fact here because the officers’ other,

independent concerns make this point immaterial.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 5

Opinion of the Court

feet away, Holder shot her twice, but she did not collapse.

Reynolds then fired multiple shots.2 After Sheehan finally

fell, a third officer (who had just arrived) kicked the knife

out of her hand. Sheehan survived.

Sometime later, San Francisco prosecuted Sheehan for

assault with a deadly weapon, assault on a peace officer

with a deadly weapon, and making criminal threats. The

jury acquitted Sheehan of making threats but was unable

to reach a verdict on the assault counts, and prosecutors

decided not to retry her.

Sheehan then brought suit, alleging, among other

things, that San Francisco violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, 42 U. S. C.

§12101 et seq., by subduing her in a manner that did not

reasonably accommodate her disability. She also sued

Reynolds and Holder in their personal capacities under

Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, for violating her

Fourth Amendment rights. In support of her claims, she

offered testimony from a former deputy police chief, Lou

Reiter, who contended that Reynolds and Holder fell short

of their training by not using practices designed to mini-

mize the risk of violence when dealing with the mentally

ill.

The District Court granted summary judgment for

petitioners. Relying on Hainze v. Richards, 207 F. 3d 795

(CA5 2000), the court held that officers making an arrest

are not required “to first determine whether their actions

would comply with the ADA before protecting themselves

and others.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 80. The court also held

that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The court wrote that the officers “had no way of knowing

——————

2 There is a dispute regarding whether Sheehan was on the ground

for the last shot. This dispute is not material: “Even if Sheehan was on

the ground, she was certainly not subdued.” 743 F. 3d 1211, 1230 (CA9

2014).

6 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

whether [Sheehan] might escape through a back window

or fire escape, whether she might hurt herself, or whether

there was anyone else in her room whom she might hurt.”

Id., at 71. In addition, the court observed that Holder did

not begin shooting until it was necessary for her to do so in

order “to protect herself ” and that “Reynolds used deadly

force only after she found that pepper spray was not

enough force to contain the situation.” Id., at 75, 76–77.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated in part. Relevant

here, the panel held that because the ADA covers public

“services, programs, or activities,” §12132, the ADA’s

accommodation requirement should be read to “to encom-

pass ‘anything a public entity does,’ ” 743 F. 3d, at 1232.

The Ninth Circuit agreed “that exigent circumstances

inform the reasonableness analysis under the ADA,” ibid.,

but concluded that it was for a jury to decide whether San

Francisco should have accommodated Sheehan by, for

instance, “respect[ing] her comfort zone, engag[ing] in non-

threatening communications and us[ing] the passage of

time to defuse the situation rather than precipitating a

deadly confrontation.” Id., at 1233.

As to Reynolds and Holder, the panel held that their

initial entry into Sheehan’s room was lawful and that,

after the officers opened the door for the second time, they

reasonably used their firearms when the pepper spray

failed to stop Sheehan’s advance. Nonetheless, the panel

also held that a jury could find that the officers “provoked”

Sheehan by needlessly forcing that second confrontation.

Id., at 1216, 1229. The panel further found that it was

clearly established that an officer cannot “forcibly enter

the home of an armed, mentally ill subject who had been

acting irrationally and had threatened anyone who en-

tered when there was no objective need for immediate

entry.” Id., at 1229. Dissenting in part, Judge Graber

would have held that the officers were entitled to qualified

immunity.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 7

Opinion of the Court

San Francisco and the officers petitioned for a writ of

certiorari and asked us to review two questions. We

granted the petition. 574 U. S. ___ (2014).

II

Title II of the ADA commands that “no qualified indi-

vidual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,

be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits

of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or

be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42

U. S. C. §12132. The first question on which we granted

review asks whether this provision “requires law enforce-

ment officers to provide accommodations to an armed,

violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing

the suspect into custody.” Pet. for Cert. i. When we

granted review, we understood this question to embody

what appears to be the thrust of the argument that San

Francisco made in the Ninth Circuit, namely that “ ‘Title II

does not apply to an officer’s on-the-street responses to

reported disturbances or other similar incidents, whether

or not those calls involve subjects with mental disabilities,

prior to the officer’s securing the scene and ensuring that

there is no threat to human life.’ ” Brief for Appellees in

No. 11–16401 (CA9), p. 36 (quoting Hainze, supra, at 801;

emphasis added); see also Brief for Appellees in No. 11–

16401, at 37 (similar).

As San Francisco explained in its reply brief at the

certiorari stage, resolving its “question presented” “does

not require a fact-intensive ‘reasonable accommodation’

inquiry,” since “the only question for this Court to resolve

is whether any accommodation of an armed and violent

individual is reasonable or required under Title II of the

ADA.” Reply to Brief in Opposition 3.

Having persuaded us to grant certiorari, San Francisco

chose to rely on a different argument than what it pressed

below. In its brief in this Court, San Francisco focuses on

8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

the statutory phrase “qualified individual,” §12132, and a

regulation declaring that Title II “does not require a public

entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit

from the services, programs, or activities of that public

entity when that individual poses a direct threat to the

health or safety of others.” 28 CFR §35.139(a) (2014).

Another regulation defines a “direct threat” as “a signifi-

cant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be

eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or proce-

dures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.”

§35.104. Putting these authorities together, San Fran-

cisco argues that “a person who poses a direct threat or

significant risk to the safety of others is not qualified for

accommodations under the ADA,” Brief for Petitioners 17.

Contending that Sheehan clearly posed a “direct threat,”

San Francisco concludes that she was therefore not “quali-

fied” for an accommodation.

Though, to be sure, this “qualified” argument does ap-

pear in San Francisco’s certiorari petition, San Francisco

never hinted at it in the Ninth Circuit. The Court does

not ordinarily decide questions that were not passed on

below. More than that, San Francisco’s new argument

effectively concedes that the relevant provision of the

ADA, 42 U. S. C. §12132, may “requir[e] law enforcement

officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent,

and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the

suspect into custody.” Pet. for Cert. i. This is so because

there may be circumstances in which any “significant risk”

presented by “an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect”

can be “eliminated by a modification of policies, practices

or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or

services.”

The argument that San Francisco now advances is

predicated on the proposition that the ADA governs the

manner in which a qualified individual with a disability is

arrested. The relevant provision provides that a public

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 9

Opinion of the Court

entity may not “exclud[e]” a qualified individual with a

disability from “participat[ing] in,” and may not “den[y]”

that individual the “benefits of[,] the services, programs,

or activities of a public entity.” §12132. This language

would apply to an arrest if an arrest is an “activity” in

which the arrestee “participat[es]” or from which the

arrestee may “benefi[t].”

This same provision also commands that “no qualified

individual with a disability shall be . . . subjected to dis-

crimination by any [public] entity.” Ibid. This part of the

statute would apply to an arrest if the failure to arrest an

individual with a mental disability in a manner that

reasonably accommodates that disability constitutes “dis-

crimination.” Ibid.

Whether the statutory language quoted above applies to

arrests is an important question that would benefit from

briefing and an adversary presentation. But San Fran-

cisco, the United States as amicus curiae, and Sheehan all

argue (or at least accept) that §12132 applies to arrests.

No one argues the contrary view. As a result, we do not

think that it would be prudent to decide the question in

this case.

Our decision not to decide whether the ADA applies to

arrests is reinforced by the parties’ failure to address a

related question: whether a public entity can be liable for

damages under Title II for an arrest made by its police

officers. Only public entities are subject to Title II, see,

e.g., Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S.

206, 208 (1998), and the parties agree that such an entity

can be held vicariously liable for money damages for the

purposeful or deliberately indifferent conduct of its em-

ployees. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 10–12, 22. But we have

never decided whether that is correct, and we decline to do

so here, in the absence of adversarial briefing.

Because certiorari jurisdiction exists to clarify the law,

its exercise “is not a matter of right, but of judicial discre-

10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

tion.” Supreme Court Rule 10. Exercising that discretion,

we dismiss the first question presented as improvidently

granted. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v.

Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 360, n. 1 (2001) (partial dismissal);

Parker v. Dugger, 498 U. S. 308, 323 (1991) (same).

III

The second question presented is whether Reynolds and

Holder can be held personally liable for the injuries that

Sheehan suffered. We conclude they are entitled to quali-

fied immunity.3

Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U. S. C.

§1983 unless they have “violated a statutory or constitu-

tional right that was clearly established at the time of the

challenged conduct.” Plumhoff, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op.,

at 12) (internal quotation marks omitted). An officer

“cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right

unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that

any reasonable official in [his] shoes would have under-

——————

3 Not satisfied with dismissing question one, which concerns San

Francisco’s liability, our dissenting colleagues would further punish

San Francisco by dismissing question two as well. See post, at 3

(opinion of SCALIA, J.) (arguing that deciding the second question would

“reward” San Francisco and “spar[e it] the significant expense of

defending the suit, and satisfying any judgment, against the individual

petitioners”). But question two concerns the liability of the individual

officers. Whatever contractual obligations San Francisco may (or may

not) have to represent and indemnify the officers are not our concern.

At a minimum, these officers have a personal interest in the correctness

of the judgment below, which holds that they may have violated the

Constitution. Moreover, when we granted the petition, we determined

that both questions independently merited review. Because of the

importance of qualified immunity “to society as a whole,” Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 814 (1982), the Court often corrects lower

courts when they wrongly subject individual officers to liability. See,

e.g., Carroll v. Carman, 574 U. S. ___ (2014) (per curiam); Wood v.

Moss, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. ___ (2014);

Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S. ___ (2013) (per curiam); Reichle v. Howards,

566 U. S. ___ (2012).

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 11

Opinion of the Court

stood that he was violating it,” ibid., meaning that “exist-

ing precedent . . . placed the statutory or constitutional

question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S.

___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). This exacting standard

“gives government officials breathing room to make rea-

sonable but mistaken judgments” by “protect[ing] all but

the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate

the law.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).

In this case, although we disagree with the Ninth Cir-

cuit’s ultimate conclusion on the question of qualified

immunity, we agree with its analysis in many respects.

For instance, there is no doubt that the officers did not

violate any federal right when they opened Sheehan’s door

the first time. See 743 F. 3d, at 1216, 1223. Reynolds and

Holder knocked on the door, announced that they were

police officers, and informed Sheehan that they wanted to

help her. When Sheehan did not come to the door, they

entered her room. This was not unconstitutional. “[L]aw

enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant

to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or

to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Brigham

City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403 (2006). See also Ken-

tucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6).

Nor is there any doubt that had Sheehan not been dis-

abled, the officers could have opened her door the second

time without violating any constitutional rights. For one

thing, “because the two entries were part of a single,

continuous search or seizure, the officers [were] not re-

quired to justify the continuing emergency with respect to

the second entry.” 743 F. 3d, at 1224 (following Michigan

v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 511 (1978)). In addition, Reynolds

and Holder knew that Sheehan had a weapon and had

threatened to use it to kill three people. They also knew

that delay could make the situation more dangerous. The

Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness, and it is

reasonable for police to move quickly if delay “would

12 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.” War-

den, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298–299

(1967). This is true even when, judged with the benefit of

hindsight, the officers may have made “some mistakes.”

Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op.,

at 5). The Constitution is not blind to “the fact that police

officers are often forced to make split-second judgments.”

Plumhoff, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 8).

We also agree with the Ninth Circuit that after the

officers opened Sheehan’s door the second time, their use

of force was reasonable. Reynolds tried to subdue

Sheehan with pepper spray, but Sheehan kept coming at

the officers until she was “only a few feet from a cornered

Officer Holder.” 743 F. 3d, at 1229. At this point, the use

of potentially deadly force was justified. See Scott v.

Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 384 (2007). Nothing in the Fourth

Amendment barred Reynolds and Holder from protecting

themselves, even though it meant firing multiple rounds.

See Plumhoff, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 11).

The real question, then, is whether, despite these dan-

gerous circumstances, the officers violated the Fourth

Amendment when they decided to reopen Sheehan’s door

rather than attempting to accommodate her disability.

Here we come to another problem. San Francisco, whose

attorneys represent Reynolds and Holder, devotes scant

briefing to this question. Instead, San Francisco argues

almost exclusively that even if it is assumed that there

was a Fourth Amendment violation, the right was not

clearly established. This Court, of course, could decide the

constitutional question anyway. See Pearson v. Callahan,

555 U. S. 223, 242 (2009) (recognizing discretion). But

because this question has not been adequately briefed, we

decline to do so. See id., at 239. Rather, we simply decide

whether the officers’ failure to accommodate Sheehan’s

illness violated clearly established law. It did not.

To begin, nothing in our cases suggests the constitu-

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 13

Opinion of the Court

tional rule applied by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit

focused on Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989), but

Graham holds only that the “ ‘objective reasonableness’ ”

test applies to excessive-force claims under the Fourth

Amendment. See id., at 388. That is far too general a

proposition to control this case. “We have repeatedly told

courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particular—not to define

clearly established law at a high level of generality.” al-

Kidd, supra, at ___ (citation omitted) (slip op., at 10); cf.

Lopez v. Smith, 574 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (per curiam) (slip

op., at 5). Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if

“clearly established” law can simply be defined as the

right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Even a cursory glance at the facts of Graham confirms

just how different that case is from this one. That case did

not involve a dangerous, obviously unstable person mak-

ing threats, much less was there a weapon involved.

There is a world of difference between needlessly with-

holding sugar from an innocent person who is suffering

from an insulin reaction, see Graham, supra, at 388–389,

and responding to the perilous situation Reynolds and

Holder confronted. Graham is a nonstarter.

Moving beyond Graham, the Ninth Circuit also turned

to two of its own cases. But even if “a controlling circuit

precedent could constitute clearly established federal law

in these circumstances,” Carroll v. Carman, 574 U. S. ___,

___ (2014) (per curiam) (slip op., at 4), it does not do so

here.

The Ninth Circuit first pointed to Deorle v. Rutherford,

272 F. 3d 1272 (CA9 2001), but from the very first para-

graph of that opinion we learn that Deorle involved an

officer’s use of a beanbag gun to subdue “an emotionally

disturbed” person who “was unarmed, had not attacked or

even touched anyone, had generally obeyed the instruc-

tions given him by various police officers, and had not

committed any serious offense.” Id., at 1275. The officer

14 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

there, moreover, “observed Deorle at close proximity for

about five to ten minutes before shooting him” in the face.

See id., at 1281. Whatever the merits of the decision in

Deorle, the differences between that case and the case

before us leap from the page. Unlike Deorle, Sheehan was

dangerous, recalcitrant, law-breaking, and out of sight.

The Ninth Circuit also leaned on Alexander v. City and

County of San Francisco, 29 F. 3d 1355 (CA9 1994), an-

other case involving mental illness. There, officials from

San Francisco attempted to enter Henry Quade’s home

“for the primary purpose of arresting him” even though

they lacked an arrest warrant. Id., at 1361. Quade, in

response, fired a handgun; police officers “shot back, and

Quade died from gunshot wounds shortly thereafter.” Id.,

at 1358. The panel concluded that a jury should decide

whether the officers used excessive force. The court rea-

soned that the officers provoked the confrontation because

there were no “exigent circumstances” excusing their

entrance. Id., at 1361.

Alexander too is a poor fit. As Judge Graber observed

below in her dissent, the Ninth Circuit has long read

Alexander narrowly. See 743 F. 3d, at 1235 (Graber, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Billing-

ton v. Smith, 292 F. 3d 1177 (CA9 2002)). Under Ninth

Circuit law,4 an entry that otherwise complies with the

Fourth Amendment is not rendered unreasonable because

it provokes a violent reaction. See id., at 1189–1190.

——————

4 Our citation to Ninth Circuit cases should not be read to suggest our

agreement (or, for that matter, disagreement) with them. The Ninth

Circuit’s “provocation” rule, for instance, has been sharply questioned

elsewhere. See Livermore v. Lubelan, 476 F. 3d 397, 406–407 (CA6

2007); see also, e.g., Hector v. Watt, 235 F. 3d 154, 160 (CA3 2001) (“[I]f

the officers’ use of force was reasonable given the plaintiff’s acts, then

despite the illegal entry, the plaintiff’s own conduct would be an inter-

vening cause”). Whatever their merits, all that matters for our quali-

fied immunity analysis is that they do not clearly establish any right

that the officers violated.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 15

Opinion of the Court

Under this rule, qualified immunity necessarily applies

here because, as explained above, competent officers could

have believed that the second entry was justified under

both continuous search and exigent circumstance ration-

ales. Indeed, even if Reynolds and Holder misjudged the

situation, Sheehan cannot “establish a Fourth Amend-

ment violation based merely on bad tactics that result in a

deadly confrontation that could have been avoided.” Id.,

at 1190. Courts must not judge officers with “the 20/20

vision of hindsight.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Graham, 490 U. S., at

396).

When Graham, Deorle, and Alexander are viewed to-

gether, the central error in the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning

is apparent. The panel majority concluded that these

three cases “would have placed any reasonable, competent

officer on notice that it is unreasonable to forcibly enter

the home of an armed, mentally ill suspect who had been

acting irrationally and had threatened anyone who en-

tered when there was no objective need for immediate

entry.” 743 F. 3d, at 1229. But even assuming that is

true, no precedent clearly established that there was not

“an objective need for immediate entry” here. No matter

how carefully a reasonable officer read Graham, Deorle,

and Alexander beforehand, that officer could not know

that reopening Sheehan’s door to prevent her from escap-

ing or gathering more weapons would violate the Ninth

Circuit’s test, even if all the disputed facts are viewed in

respondent’s favor. Without that “fair notice,” an officer is

entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Plumhoff, 572

U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13).

Nor does it matter for purposes of qualified immunity

that Sheehan’s expert, Reiter, testified that the officers

did not follow their training. According to Reiter, San

Francisco trains its officers when dealing with the mentally

ill to “ensure that sufficient resources are brought to the

scene,” “contain the subject” and “respect the suspect’s

16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

Opinion of the Court

“comfort zone,” “use time to their advantage,” and “employ

non-threatening verbal communication and open-ended

questions to facilitate the subject’s participation in com-

munication.” Brief for Respondent 7. Likewise, San Fran-

cisco’s policy is “ ‘to use hostage negotiators’ ” when dealing

with “ ‘a suspect [who] resists arrest by barricading him-

self.’ ” Id., at 8 (quoting San Francisco Police Department

General Order 8.02, §II(B) (Aug. 3, 1994), online at

http://www.sf-police.org (as visited May 14, 2015, and

available in Clerk of Court’s case file)).

Even if an officer acts contrary to her training, however,

(and here, given the generality of that training, it is not at

all clear that Reynolds and Holder did so), that does not

itself negate qualified immunity where it would otherwise

be warranted. Rather, so long as “a reasonable officer

could have believed that his conduct was justified,” a

plaintiff cannot “avoi[d] summary judgment by simply

producing an expert’s report that an officer’s conduct

leading up to a deadly confrontation was imprudent,

inappropriate, or even reckless.” Billington, supra, at

1189. Cf. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 216, n. 6 (2001)

(GINSBURG, J., concurring in judgment) (“ ‘[I]n close cases,

a jury does not automatically get to second-guess these life

and death decisions, even though a plaintiff has an expert

and a plausible claim that the situation could better have

been handled differently’ ” (quoting Roy v. Inhabitants of

Lewiston, 42 F. 3d 691, 695 (CA1 1994))). Considering the

specific situation confronting Reynolds and Holder, they

had sufficient reason to believe that their conduct was

justified.

Finally, to the extent that a “robust consensus of cases

of persuasive authority” could itself clearly establish the

federal right respondent alleges, al-Kidd, 563 U. S., at ___

(slip op., at 10), no such consensus exists here. If any-

thing, the opposite may be true. See, e.g., Bates v. Ches-

terfield County, 216 F. 3d 367, 372 (CA4 2000)

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 17

Opinion of the Court

(“Knowledge of a person’s disability simply cannot fore-

close officers from protecting themselves, the disabled

person, and the general public”); Sanders v. Minneapolis,

474 F. 3d 523, 527 (CA8 2007) (following Bates, supra);

Menuel v. Atlanta, 25 F. 3d 990 (CA11 1994) (upholding

use of deadly force to try to apprehend a mentally ill man

who had a knife and was hiding behind a door).

In sum, we hold that qualified immunity applies be-

cause these officers had no “fair and clear warning of what

the Constitution requires.” al-Kidd, supra, at ___ (KEN-

NEDY, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3). Because the qualified

immunity analysis is straightforward, we need not decide

whether the Constitution was violated by the officers’

failure to accommodate Sheehan’s illness.

* * *

For these reasons, the first question presented is dis-

missed as improvidently granted. On the second question,

we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. The case is

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or

decision of this case.

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1

Opinion of SCALIA, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 13–1412

_________________

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.

TERESA SHEEHAN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 18, 2015]

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The first question presented (QP) in the petition for

certiorari was “Whether Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act [(ADA)] requires law enforcement officers

to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and

mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect

into custody.” Pet. for Cert. i. The petition assured us

(quite accurately), and devoted a section of its argument to

the point, that “The Circuits Are In Conflict On This

Question.” Id., at 18. And petitioners faulted the Ninth

Circuit for “holding that the ADA’s reasonable accommo-

dation requirement applies to officers facing violent cir-

cumstances,” a conclusion that was “in direct conflict with

the categorical prohibition on such claims adopted by the

Fifth and Sixth Circuits.” Ibid. Petitioners had expressly

advocated for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits’ position in the

Court of Appeals. See Appellees’ Answering Brief in No.

11–16401 (CA9), pp. 35–37 (“[T]he ADA does not apply to

police officers’ responses to violent individuals who happen

to be mentally ill, where officers have not yet brought the

violent situation under control”).

Imagine our surprise, then, when the petitioners’ prin-

cipal brief, reply brief, and oral argument had nary a word

2 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

SCALIA, J., concurring

Opinion inof

part and,dissenting

SCALIA J. in part

to say about that subject. Instead, petitioners bluntly

announced in their principal brief that they “do not assert

that the actions of individual police officers [in arresting

violent and armed disabled persons] are never subject to

scrutiny under Title II,” and proclaimed that “[t]he only

ADA issue here is what Title II requires of individual

officers who are facing an armed and dangerous suspect.”

Brief for Petitioners 34 (emphasis added). In other words,

the issue is not (as the petition had asserted) whether Title

II applies to arrests of violent, mentally ill individuals, but

rather how it applies under the circumstances of this case,

where the plaintiff threatened officers with a weapon. We

were thus deprived of the opportunity to consider, and

settle, a controverted question of law that has divided the

Circuits, and were invited instead to decide an ADA ques-

tion that has relevance only if we assume the Ninth Cir-

cuit correctly resolved the antecedent, unargued question

on which we granted certiorari. The Court is correct to

dismiss the first QP as improvidently granted.

Why, one might ask, would a petitioner take a position

on a Circuit split that it had no intention of arguing, or at

least was so little keen to argue that it cast the argument

aside uninvited? The answer is simple. Petitioners in-

cluded that issue to induce us to grant certiorari. As the

Court rightly observes, there are numerous reasons why

we would not have agreed to hear petitioners’ first QP if

their petition for certiorari presented it in the same form

that it was argued on the merits. See ante, at 7–10. But it

is also true that there was little chance that we would

have taken this case to decide only the second, fact-bound

QP—that is, whether the individual petitioners are en-

titled to qualified immunity on respondent’s Fourth

Amendment claim.

This Court’s Rule 10, entitled “Considerations Govern-

ing Review on Certiorari,” says that certiorari will be

granted “only for compelling reasons,” which include the

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3

SCALIA, J., concurring

Opinioninof

part and,dissenting

SCALIA J. in part

existence of conflicting decisions on issues of law among

federal courts of appeals, among state courts of last resort,

or between federal courts of appeals and state courts of

last resort. The Rule concludes: “A petition for a writ of

certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error con-

sists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of

a properly stated rule of law.” The second QP implicates,

at most, the latter. It is unlikely that we would have

granted certiorari on that question alone.

But (and here is what lies beneath the present case)

when we do grant certiorari on a question for which there

is a “compelling reason” for our review, we often also grant

certiorari on attendant questions that are not inde-

pendently “certworthy,” but that are sufficiently connected

to the ultimate disposition of the case that the efficient

administration of justice supports their consideration. In

other words, by promising argument on the Circuit conflict

that their first question presented, petitioners got us to

grant certiorari not only on the first question but also on

the second.

I would not reward such bait-and-switch tactics by

proceeding to decide the independently “uncertworthy”

second question. And make no mistake about it: Today’s

judgment is a reward. It gives the individual petitioners

all that they seek, and spares San Francisco the signifi-

cant expense of defending the suit, and satisfying any

judgment, against the individual petitioners.* I would not

encourage future litigants to seek review premised on

arguments they never plan to press, secure in the

knowledge that once they find a toehold on this Court’s

docket, we will consider whatever workaday arguments

——————

* San Francisco will still be subject to liability under the ADA if the

trial court determines that the facts demanded accommodation. The

Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s judgment that the ADA

was inapplicable to police arrests of violent and armed disabled per-

sons, and remanded for the accommodation determination.

4 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

v. SHEEHAN

SCALIA, J., concurring

Opinion inof

part and,dissenting

SCALIA J. in part

they choose to present in their merits briefs.

There is no injustice in my vote to dismiss both ques-

tions as improvidently granted. To be sure, ex post—after

the Court has improvidently decided the uncertworthy

question—it appears that refusal to reverse the judgment

below would have left a wrong unrighted. Ex ante, how-

ever—before we considered and deliberated upon the second

QP but after petitioners’ principal brief made clear that

they would not address the Circuit conflict presented by

the first QP—we had no more assurance that this question

was decided incorrectly than we do for the thousands of

other uncertworthy questions we refuse to hear each

Term. Many of them have undoubtedly been decided

wrongly, but we are not, and for well over a century have

not been, a court of error correction. The fair course—the

just course—is to treat this now-nakedly uncertworthy

question the way we treat all others: by declining to decide

it. In fact, there is in this case an even greater reason to

decline: to avoid being snookered, and to deter future

snookering.

Because I agree with the Court that “certiorari jurisdic-

tion exists to clarify the law,” ante, at 9 (emphasis added),

I would dismiss both questions presented as improvidently

granted.