City of Tahlequah v. Bond
595 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, meaning the rule's contours must be so well-defined that it is clear to a reasonable officer that their conduct was unlawful in the specific situation confronted.
Facts:
- On August 12, 2016, Joy, Dominic Rollice's ex-wife, called 911 reporting Rollice was intoxicated in her garage, refused to leave, and kept tools there.
- Officers Josh Girdner, Chase Reed, and Brandon Vick responded to the call, knowing Rollice was Joy's intoxicated ex-husband who wouldn't leave her home.
- Joy led the officers to the garage, where they encountered Rollice and began speaking with him; Rollice appeared nervous and refused Officer Girdner's request for a pat down.
- As Officer Girdner stepped toward Rollice, Rollice stepped back, turned, and walked towards a workbench where his tools hung; the officers followed, maintaining a distance of 6-10 feet.
- Rollice grabbed a hammer from the wall, turned to face the officers, and grasped it with both hands at shoulder level, as if preparing to swing a baseball bat.
- Officers drew their guns and yelled at Rollice to drop the hammer, but he did not comply.
- Rollice then took a few steps to his right, creating an unobstructed path to Officer Girdner, raised the hammer higher behind his head, and took a stance as if to throw or charge.
- In response, Officers Girdner and Vick fired their weapons, killing Rollice.
Procedural Posture:
- Dominic Rollice's estate filed suit against Officers Girdner and Vick, among others, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging a violation of Rollice’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- The District Court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment, concluding their use of force was reasonable, and even if not, qualified immunity prevented the case from proceeding.
- Rollice's estate appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Rollice's estate was the appellant, officers were the appellees).
- A panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court's summary judgment, finding that a jury could conclude the officers' reckless or deliberate conduct created the situation leading to deadly force, and that several cases clearly established the unlawfulness of the officers' conduct.
- The City of Tahlequah and the officers (petitioners) subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does qualified immunity protect police officers from a §1983 excessive force claim when existing precedent, even if generally establishing liability for conduct that recklessly creates a dangerous situation, does not specifically establish that the officers' actions in a factually distinct scenario violated the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, qualified immunity protects the officers because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law, as the precedent relied upon by the Tenth Circuit was too general or factually distinguishable to provide clear notice to a reasonable officer in this specific situation. The Supreme Court emphasized that to overcome qualified immunity, the 'rule's contours must be so well defined that it is clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted,' a standard particularly crucial in the Fourth Amendment context due to the difficulty officers face in applying legal doctrine to varied factual situations. The Court found that none of the Tenth Circuit's cited cases—Estate of Ceballos, Hastings, Allen, and Sevier—came close to establishing that the officers' specific conduct (following at a distance, not yelling until after the hammer was picked up) was unlawful. For instance, Allen involved officers screaming and attempting to physically wrest a gun, a 'dramatically different' scenario. Sevier merely contained dicta and lacked jurisdiction, Estate of Ceballos was decided after the incident, and Hastings involved different aggressive initial actions. Without a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's high bar for overcoming qualified immunity, especially in excessive force cases, by emphasizing the need for highly specific, factually analogous precedent to establish a constitutional violation. It demonstrates the Court's consistent push against defining 'clearly established law' at too high a level of generality, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to succeed in §1983 claims against officers. This ruling limits the ability of lower courts to find a lack of qualified immunity based on broad legal principles without a nearly identical factual scenario already having been deemed unlawful, potentially insulating officers from liability even when their actions might be seen as contributing to a dangerous situation.
