explaining it is a “longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality’” but must instead “be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” to prevent turning “the rule of qualified immunity . . . into a rule of 31 virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights” (omission in original) (first quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742, then Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 )
How later courts described this case
- explaining it is a “longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality’” but must instead “be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” to prevent turning “the rule of qualified immunity . . . into a rule of 31 virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights” (omission in original) (first quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742, then Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 )
- stating that the Tenth Circuit’s observation that the case “present[ed] a unique set of facts and circumstances.... should have been an important indication ... that [the officer’s] conduct did not violate a clearly established right” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
- stating that officers’ violation of knock and announce rule, which' appellate court held was a constitutional’ violation but hot a clearly established'one, could not serve as basis for liability on theory that it was proximate cause of subsequent use of force
- explaining that “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate ... [because] immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Perry v. Woodruff County Sheriff Department ex rel. Barker, 858 F.3d 1141 (2017)
No settled Fourth Amendment principle requires that officer to second-guess the earlier steps already taken by his or her fellow officers.” 137 S.Ct. at 552. White is inapplicable to our case because it addresses a wholly different set of facts.
The opinion
Justice GINSBURG, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion on the understanding that it does not foreclose the denial of summary judgment to Officers Truesdale and Mariscal. See 814 F.3d 1060 , 1068, 1073, 1074 (C.A.10 2016) (Court of Appeals emphasized, repeatedly, that fact disputes exist on question whether Truesdale and Mariscal "adequately identified themselves" as police officers before shouting "Come out or we're coming in" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, as to Officer White, the Court, as I comprehend its opinion, leaves open the propriety of denying summary judgment based on fact disputes over when Officer White arrived at the scene, what he may have witnessed, and whether he had adequate time to identify himself and order Samuel Pauly to drop his weapon before Officer White shot Pauly. Compare id., at 1080 , with ante, at 552 - 553. See also Civ. No. 12-1311 (D NM, Feb. 5, 2014), pp. 7, and n. 5, 9, App. to Pet. for Cert. 75-76, and n. 5, 77 (suggesting that Officer White may have been on the scene when Officers Truesdale and Mariscal threatened to invade the Pauly home).