# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 33 71

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Troy Ell is on , as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Eug en e Ell is on , de ceas ed

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Don na Lesh er, i nd iv id ua ll y an d i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Tabi th a Mc Cri ll is

, in di vi du al ly and in he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s ,

St ua rt Th om as , in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Cit y of Li tt le Ro ck , a

m un ic ip al it y ; Bi g C ou nt ry

Ch at eau Apar tm en ts , a co rp or at io n, d oi ng bu si ne ss as Bi g C ou nt ry

Ch at eau , LLC; Car l Sc hu lt z,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 14
Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

On Decem

be r 9, 20 10

, Offi cer Don na Lesh er an d Dete ct iv e Tab it ha McC ril li s

of th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t, whi le wor ki ng of f du ty, were pa tro ll in g th e Bi g

Co un try Ch at eau ap a r t men t s in Lit tl e Ro ck

. As ev en ts un fo ld ed

, Lesh er sh ot an d

ki ll ed a 67 -y ear- ol d re si de nt na m ed Eug en e Ell is on in hi s ap art m en t. Tro y Ell is on , Eug en e’s so n, br ou gh t th is act io n un de r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 19 83 on be ha lf of hi s fat he r’s

es ta te

. The la wsu it al le ge s th at Lesh er an d McC ril li s vi ol at ed Eug en e Ell is on ’s

Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by un la wfu ll y en te rin g hi s ho m e an d su bjec ti ng hi m to an

ex ces si ve us e of fo rce. Co un t I al le ge s un la wfu l en try, an d Co un t II al le ge s ex ces si ve

us e o f fo rce.

Le sh er an d McC ril li s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al i f i e d

im m un it y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th ei r m ot io n. W e co nc lu de

, ba se d on th e fact s

as su m ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, th at th e m ot io n was pr op erl y de ni ed as to Co un t I

ag ai n s t b o th de fen da nt s an d as to Co un t II ag ai ns t Lesh er on th e cl ai m al le gi ng

un reas on ab le us e of de ad ly fo rce, be cau se th e as su m ed fact s wou ld sh ow a vi ol at io n

of cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. The of fic ers , ho wev er, are

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im

m un it y on Co un t II fo r th e cl ai m co nc ern in g th ei r us e of no nle th al for ce. We the refo re af fir m in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt.

I.

In an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al fro m an or de r de nyin g qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we ha ve

au th or it y to de ci de th e pu rel y le ga l is su e whe th er th e fact s al le ge d by th e pl ai nt iff

su pp or t a cl ai m of vi ol at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w. Mit ch el l v. For sy th

, 47 2 U.S.

51 1, 52 8 n.9 (1 98 5)

. W e do no t, by co nt ras t, ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whi ch fact s

a pa rty m ay , or m ay no t, be ab le to pr ov e at tr i a l

. J o h n s o n v. Jo ne s , 51 5 U.S. 30 4,

31 3 (1 99 5)

. In co ns id eri ng th e ap pe al by th e of fic ers , th eref

or e, we are con st rai ne d

-2

-by th e fact s th at th e di st ric t co ur t as su m ed in reac hi ng it s de ci si on

. W e no w se t fo rth

th os e fac ts

.

As of 20 10

, pu rs ua nt to an ag reem en t wit h th e Bi g Co un try Ch at eau ap art m en t

co m pl ex , off -d ut y Lit tl e Ro ck po li ce offi cers pa tro ll ed th e ap art m en ts as sec on da ry

em pl oym en t. On t he ev en in g in qu es ti on , Lesh er and McC ril li s were pa tro ll in g th e

ap art m en ts when th ey

no ti ced th at th e d oo r to Ell is on ’s apa rtment wa s o pe n.

Fro m ou ts id e, Lesh er an d McC ril li s co ul d se e Ell is o n s i t t in g on hi s co uc h

in si de th e ap art m en t. Ell is on ap pe ared rel ax ed

, an d was lean in g on hi s can e. Afte r

Lesh er an d McC ril li s st art ed a co nv ers at io n wit h Ell is on , he res po nd ed th at he di d no t

wan t t he ir h el p o r at te nt io n a nd to ld th e o ffi cers to lea ve hi m alo ne

.

McC ril li s th ou gh t Ell is on was be in g m ou th y wit h he r an d wan te d to ke ep hi m

fro m sh ut ti ng th e do or o n t h e o f fic ers

. McC ril li s st ep pe d in si de th e ap art m en t,

fo ll owe d by Lesh er, an d as ke d Ell is on wha t was hi s pr ob le m

. Ell is on go t up fro m th e

co uc h an d ap pr oa ch ed th e of f i c e r s s t a nd in g at th e do or

. McC ril li s sh ov ed Ell is on , Ell is on pu sh ed ba ck

, an d a ph y si cal al te rcat io n en su ed

. D u r i n g t h e co ur se of th e

st ru gg le

, McC ril li s an d Lesh er rep eat ed ly st ru ck Ell is on an d kn oc ke d of f hi s gl as se s.

Ell is on rep eat ed ly to ld th e of fic ers to ge t ou t of hi s ap art m en t an d to le av e hi m al on e.

At so m e po i n t d u r i ng th e en co un te r, McC ril li s req ue st ed he lp fro m ba ck -u p

un it s at th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t. Offi cers Vin cen t Luc io an d Brad Bo y ce

arri ve d on th e sc en e sh or tl y th erea fte r. The ph y si cal al te rcat io n was ov er whe n Luc io

an d Bo y ce arri ve d, bu t Lesh er was st il l in si de th e ap art m en t, an d Luc io reac he d in si de

to pu ll Lesh er o ut

.

The off ic ers th en in st ru ct ed Ell is on to li e d own , and he refu se d. Lesh er ne xt

to ld McC ril li s th at Ell i s o n w a s g e t ti ng hi s can e, an d th at sh e was go in g to sh oo t

Ell is on

. Sh e th en fir ed two sh ot s in to th e ap art m en t, ki ll in g Ell is on

. Afte r rev ie win g

-3

-th e reco rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at it is no t cl ear whe th er Ell is on was ho ld in g

hi s ca ne when he was s ho t.

Ell is on ’s so n Troy, as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of Ell is on ’s es ta te

, su ed Lesh er

an d McC ril li s. The co m

pl ai nt al le ge d two vi ol at io ns of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, on e

pr em is ed on an al le ge d un la wfu l e n t r y, th e ot he r ba se d on al le ge d ex ces si ve us e of

fo rce. Lesh er an d McC ril li s m ov ed fo r su m m ar y jud gm en t, arg ui ng th at qu al ifi ed

im m un it y ba rred Ell is on ’s su it

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d th e of fic ers

ap pe al

.

II.

Qua li fie d im m

un it y sh ie ld s po li ce of

fic ers fro m su it in a § 19 83 act io n un le ss

th ei r co nd uc t vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht of whi ch a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld

ha ve kn own

. Har lo w v. Fit zg er al d

, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)

. “ The co nt ou rs of th e rig ht m us t be su ffi ci en tl y cl ear th at a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld un de rs ta nd th at wha t

he is do in g vi ol at es th at rig ht .” And er so n v. Cr ei

gh to n , 48 3 U

. S

. 6 3 5

, 64 0 (1 98 7)

. A pl ai nt iff ne ed no t sh ow th at th e “ ve ry act io n in qu es ti on ha s pr ev io us ly be en he ld

un la wfu l,” id

., bu t h e mu s t e st ab li sh th at th e un la wfu ln es s was ap pa ren t in li gh t of

pr eex is ti ng la w. Hop e v. Pelz er , 53 6 U.S. 73 0, 74 1 (2 00 2)

. “ The sa li en t qu es ti on is

whe th er th e st at e of th e l a w a t t h e ti m e of an in ci de nt pr ov id ed fai r warn in g to th e

de fen da nt s th at th ei r al le ge d co nd uc t was un co ns ti tu ti on al .” To la n v. Co tt on , 13 4 S.

Ct

. 18 61

, 18 66 (2 01 4) (q uo ta ti on s an d al te rat io ns om it te d)

. “ W he n pr op erl y ap pl ie d,

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y pr ot ect s al l bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt or th os e who kn owi ng ly

vi ol at e th e la w.” Ta

yl or v. Bar kes

, 13 5 S

. C t

. 20 42

, 20 44 (2 01 5) (b rack et s an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

-4

-A.

On th e cl ai m th at th e of fic ers un la wfu ll y en te red Ell is on ’s ap art m en t, th e

di st ric t co ur t reas on ed as fo ll ows : “ V i ewin g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

Ell is on , it can no t be co nc lu de d as a m at te r of la w th at an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s

ex is te d f o r th e of fic ers to be li ev e th at th ey ne ed ed to en te r th e ap art m en t be cau se

Ell is on or so m eo ne el se wit hi n th e ap art m en t ne ed ed im m ed ia te ai d.” The di st ric t

co ur t al so sa id “ [i]t is cl ear th at en te rin g a ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt

, ab se nt co ns en t or

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces , vi ol at es a cl earl y est ab li sh ed rig ht .”

The of fic ers arg ue t h a t t he y la wfu ll y en te red Ell is on ’s ap art m en t wit ho ut a

warra nt un de r th ei r au th or it y to act as co m m un it y care ta ke rs who m ay as si st a pe rs on

who is se rio us ly in

jure d or th reat en ed wit h su ch in jury. The ru le th at th ey in vo ke

, whe th er de no te d as an ex cep ti o n t o th e warra nt req ui rem en t fo r “ co m m un it y

care ta ki ng ” or “ em erg en cy ai d,” se e Bur ke v. Su ll iv an , 67 7 F.3 d 36 7, 37 1 & n.5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 12 ), is th is : “ A po li ce of fic er m ay en te r a res id en ce wit ho ut a warra nt

. . . whe re th e of

fic er ha s a reas on ab le be li ef th at an em erg en cy ex is ts req ui rin g hi s or he r

at te nt io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Que za da

, 44 8 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); se e Ryb ur n v. Huf

f

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 98 7, 99 0 (2 01 2) ; Min cey v. Ari zo na , 43 7 U.S. 38 5, 39 2- 93
(1 97 8)

.

Acco rd in g t o Lesh er an d McC ril li s, th e sc en e th ey co nf ro nt ed at Ell is on ’s

ap art m en t jus ti fie d th ei r en try. Th e of fic ers su bm it th at th ey ob se rv ed an op en

ap art m en t do or in a hi gh cri m e area on a co ld Decem be r ni gh t

, sa w Ell is on si tt in g

be hi nd a br ok en gl as s ta bl e in a d i s he ve le d ap art m en t, an d rece iv ed an ob li qu e

res po ns e fro m Ell is on —“ wha t do es it lo ok li ke ”—wh en th ey as ke d whe th er he was

ok ay

. Und er th is se t of fact s, th e of fic ers ur ge , it was reas on ab le fo r th em to en te r an d

in ve st ig at e wh e t h e r so m eo ne ne ed ed as si st an ce. At a m in im um , th ey sa y , a

reas on ab le of

fic er co ul d ha ve be li ev ed th at it was reas on ab le to do so , su ch th at

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pl ie s.

-5

-W e can no t ac cep t t he co nt en ti on of t he off ic ers , bec au se it wou ld req ui re us

to ex am in e a m at te r ov er whi ch we la ck ju ris di ct io n— “ whi ch fact s a pa rty m ay , or

m ay no t, be ab le to pr ov e at tri al .” Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S. at 31 3. The fact s as su m ed by

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t in cl ud e sa li en t po in ts ur ge d by th e of fic ers : a br ok en gl as s

ta bl e vi si bl e to th e of

fic ers , a di sh ev e le d ap art m en t su gg es ti ng a di sr up ti on , a nd an

am bi gu ou s res po ns e by Ell is on

. The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r as su m ed in st ead th at

Ell is on ap pe ared rel ax ed whi le si tt in g on hi s co uc h, th at Ell is on to ld th e of fic ers th at

he di d no t wan t th ei r he lp or at te nt io n, an d th at Ell is on to ld th e of fic ers to le av e hi m

al on e. In an in te rlo cu to r y a p p e a l fro m a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we m ay

ad dr es s on ly ab st ract is su es of la w, an d we are co ns tra in ed b y t h e f a c t s th at were

as su m ed in th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er.

Un d e r t h e f

act s ou tl in ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, th e of fic ers are no t en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t as su m ed th at th e of fic ers en te red th e ap art m en t

aft er “ McC ril li s th ou gh t Ell is on was be in g m ou th y wit h he r an d wan te d to ke ep hi m

fro m sh ut ti ng th e do or on t h e m.” R

. D o c

. 17 0, at 2. The Fo ur th Am en dm en t

ge ne ral ly req ui res a warra nt be fo re po li ce m ay en te r a res id en ce, Pay to n v. New Y or k

, 44 5 U.S. 57 3, 59 0 (1 98 0)

, an d whi le th ere are ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t

in ex cep ti on al si tu at io ns , “ m ou th in es s” of a res id en t is no t on e of th em

. The rig ht to

be se cu re in a res id en ce ag ai ns t a warra nt le ss en try was cl earl y es ta bl is he d by Pay to n

an d ot he r de ci si on s as of Decem b e r 20 10

. Se e St ea ga ld v. Uni te d St at es , 45 1 U.S.

20 4, 21 1 (1 98 1) ; Smi th v. Ka ns as Ci ty

, Mis so ur i Pol ic e Dep t.

, 58 6 F.3 d 57 6, 58 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). Alt ho ug h th e pr eci se fact pa tt ern de sc rib ed by th e di st ric t co ur t ha s no t

be en th e su bjec t o f a Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on , o ffi cers were on fai r no ti ce th at th ey

co ul d no t en te r a ho m e si m pl y be cau se th ey pe rcei ve d as m ou th y a res id en t who to ld

th em th at he wan te d no he lp an d de si red to be le ft al on e. In de ed

, th e of fic ers do no t

arg ue th at en try was pe rm is si bl e on th at ba si s. The y co nt en d, as no te d, th at ot he r

fact s no t acce pt ed by th e di st ric t co ur t jus ti fie d th ei r se arch

. Lim it ed as we are by th e

fact s as su m ed in th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r, we affi rm th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

on th e cl ai m

th at McC ril li s an d Les he r un la wfu ll y en te red Ell is on ’s res id en ce.

-6

-B.

On th e cl ai m th at Lesh er us ed ex ces si ve fo rce whe n sh e sh ot an d ki ll ed Ell is on , th e d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d:

Si m pl y pu t, th e fact s , w h e n vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to
Ell is on , in di cat e th at Ell is on , a 67 y ear ol d m an , was st an di ng in hi s own ho m e whe n he was ki ll ed by Lesh er, aft er sh e an d McC ril li s un la wfu ll y

en te red hi s ap ar t men t an d ig no red hi s req ue st s fo r th em to le av e. Alt ho ug h he was refu si ng to li e on th e gr ou nd as th e of fic ers di rect ed

, th e fo ur of

fic ers , two m al e an d two fem al e, d i d n o t try to ph y si cal ly

su bd ue hi m an d it is un di sp ut ed th at he was m ak in g n o att em pt to fle e. Lesh er al so ne ve r warn ed hi m th at sh e ha d a gu n an d wou ld sh oo t if he
d id no t dr op hi s can e. As a res ul t, a reas on ab le jury co ul d f i n d t h a t Lesh er us ed de ad ly fo rce ag ai ns t a pe r s o n w h o d id no t po se an im m ed ia te th reat of s eri ou s p hysic al in jury or de at h t o t he m

.

The di st ric t co ur t fu rth er ru l e d th at Lesh er was no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y , be cau se “ ex is ti ng cas e la w m ad e i t s u f f ic ie nt ly cl ear to a reas on ab le of fic er th at a

su sp ect can no t be ap pr eh en de d by us e of de ad ly fo rce un le ss th at in di vi du al po se s a

th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm .” R. Doc

. 17 0, at 14 (ci t i n g N a n c e v. Sa mmis

, 58 6

F.3 d 6 04 , 61 1 (8 th Cir . 20 09 )).

The F o u r t h A men dm en t req ui res us to as k, ba se d on th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a

reas on ab le of

fic er on th e sc en e, “ whe th er th e o f f i c e rs ’ act io ns are ‘objec ti ve ly

reas on ab le ’ in li gh t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g th em , wit ho ut reg ard

to th ei r un de rlyin g in te nt or m ot iv at io n.” Gra ha m v. C o n n or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 7
(1 98 9) . “ The us e of de ad ly fo rce is reas on ab le whe re an offi cer has pr ob ab le cau se

to be li ev e th at a su sp ect po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm to th e of fic er or

ot he rs .” Lo ch v. Cit

y o f Li tc hf ie ld , 68 9 F .3d 96 1, 9 65 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) . But wher e a

pe rs on “ po se s no im m ed ia te th reat to th e of fic er an d no th reat to ot he rs ,” de ad ly fo rce

is no t ju st ifi ed

. Ten ne ss ee v. Ga rn er , 47 1 U.S. 1 , 11 (19 85 ).

-7

-Lesh er arg ue s th at he r us e of de ad ly fo rce was reas on ab le

, be cau se Ell is on ha d

di so be y ed m

ul ti pl e co m

m an ds to li e do wn on th e flo or of th e a p a r t men t

, res is te d

of fic ers du rin g th e al te rcat io n in th e ap art m en t, an d ch arg ed at th e of fic ers whi le

swi ng in g a can e. O n th es e fact s, Lesh er co nt en ds

, a reas on ab le of fic er co ul d ha ve

be li ev ed th at th ere was a th reat of d eat h o r se rio us ph y si cal in jury to t he of

fic ers or

ot he rs

. In vo ki ng qu al ifi ed im m un i ty, m or eo ve r, sh e arg ue s th at it was no t cl earl y

es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th e us e

of de ad ly force ag ai ns t a m an un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces

.

W e co nc lu de

, ag ai n, th at we can no t acce pt th e co nt en ti on ad va nc ed by Lesh er,

be cau se he r fram in g of the ab st ract le ga l iss ue is pr em is ed on a se t of facts th at was

n o t a s s um ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. Lesh er av ers th at Ell is on ch arg ed at he r an d th e

ot he r of fic ers whi le swi ng in g a can e. The d is tri ct co ur t, co ns tru in g t he ev id en ce i n

th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Ell is on , th ou gh t it was “ un cl ear whe th er or no t Ell is on was

ho ld in g hi s can e,” an d th at “ [d ]iscr ep an ci es an d va ria ti on s in th e of fic ers ’ te st im on y

m ak e it im

po ss ib le to de te rm in e wha t th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g Lesh er

were at th e m om en t whe n sh e sh ot an d ki ll ed Ell is on .” R. Doc

. 17 0, at 3, 14

. W e do

no t hav e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whe th er Elli so n’s est at e wil l be abl e to pr ov e at tri al

th at Lesh er sh ot Ell is on whi le he was em pt y -h an de d. Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S. at 31 3. W e

m us t acce pt fo r pu rp os es of ou r de ci si on th at Ell is on was no t wiel di ng th e can e whe n

th e sh oo ti ng oc cu rred

.

Co ns id eri ng th e ab st ract le ga l is su e ba se d on th e fact s as su m ed by th e di st ric t

co ur t, we co nc lu de th at Lesh er i s n ot en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y . If Lesh er s ho t

Ell is on whi le he was si m

pl y st an di ng in hi s ap art m en t an d ho ld in g no can e, th en th ere

were no t reas on ab le gr ou nd s to be li ev e th at Ell is on po se d a se rio us th reat of de at h or

se rio us ph y si cal in

jury to th e of

fic ers or ot he rs

. Ell is on ’s refu sa l of a co m m an d to li e

do wn o n t he flo or di d n ot , by it se lf, m ak e rea so na bl e th e u se of d ead ly force

.

-8

-Ell is on ’s rig ht to be sec ur e ag ai ns t a s ei zu re by th e us e of de ad ly force un de r

th os e ci rcu m st an ces was cl earl y es ta bl is h e d a s o f Decem be r 20 10

. Si nc e th e 19 85

de ci si on in Ten ne ss ee v. Gar ne r , “ of fic ers ha ve be en on no ti ce th at th ey m ay no t us e

de ad ly fo rce un le ss th e su sp ect po se s a si gn ifi can t th reat of de at h or se rio us ph y si cal

in jury to th e of

fic er or ot he rs .” Cr ai

gh ea d v. Lee

, 39 9 F.3 d 95 4, 96 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ).

Alt ho ug h th e pr eci se sc en ari o de sc rib ed by th e di st ric t co ur t do es no t ap pe ar in a

rep or te d de ci si on , th e of

fic ers were on fai r no ti ce th at th e us e of de ad ly fo rce wou ld

no t be reas on ab le

. Lesh er d o e s n o t c on te nd th at a reas on ab le of fic er co ul d ha ve

be li ev ed th at it was r e a s o n a bl e to us e de ad ly fo rce m erel y to en fo rce an or de r th at

Ell is on li e on th e gr ou nd

. Her arg um en t is pr em is ed on a di ffer en t se t of fact s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to acce p t in res ol vi ng th e m ot io n. W e th eref or e affi rm th e

de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on Ell is on ’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Lesh er ba se d on th e u s e o f

de ad ly force

.

C.

The of fic ers al so ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary judgm en t on th e cl ai m th at th ey us ed ex ces si ve no n- le th al fo rce ag ai ns t Ell is on du rin g

th e al te rcat io n in th e ap art m en t. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s th is as pe ct of th ei r

m ot io n. In so far as th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t st at e th e fact s rel ev an t to th is po rti on of

th e cl ai m , we hav e d et erm in ed fro m th e rec or d wh at fact s t he co ur t l ik el y ass um ed

. Se e Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S. at 31 9.

The di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at aft er McC ril li s an d Lesh er en te red El l i s o n ’s

ap art m en t, Ell is on ap pr oa ch ed th e do or, Mc Cr ill is shov ed E ll is on , an d Ell is on pu sh ed

b a c k

. The re fo ll owe d a ph y si cal al te rcat io n in whi ch Ell is on rep eat ed ly to ld t h e

of fic e r s t o g et ou t of hi s ap art m en t, an d th e of fic ers rep eat ed ly st ru ck Ell is on

. A c c or di ng to th e m ed ic al ex am in er’s rep or t of in juri es , as id e fro m th e gu ns ho t

wou nd s th at ki l l e d El l is on , th e bo dy sh owe d a “ m in or rig ht fro nt ga le al sc al p

-9

-co nt us io n,” a “ m in or cu ta ne ou s ab ras io n of rig h t l o w e r arm ,” an d “ co nt us io ns of

te st es .” Def.’s Mo t. Su m m . J. Ex. 6 , at 1 1, R. Do c. 12 4.

The of fic ers arg ue th at th ey

were en ti tl ed to pr ot ect th em se lv es whe n Elli so n

res po nd ed to McC ril l i s ’s s ho ve by “ at ta ck in g” th e of fic ers

. The di st ric t co ur t

as su m ed on ly th at Ell is on “ pu sh ed ba ck ,” an d th at th e of fic ers th en rep eat ed ly st ru ck

hi m an d kn oc ke d of

f hi s gl as se s. W ha te ve r th e rea so na bl en es s o f th e fo rce us ed in

li gh t of th e f

a c t s a s s um ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, it was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d as of

Decem be r 20 10 th at a us e of fo rce cau si ng on ly de min imi s in jury vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. Ch amb er

s v. Pen ny co ok

, 64 1 F.3 d 89 8, 90 8- 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Our

cas es ch arac te riz e rel at iv el y m in or sc rap es , br ui se s, an d co nt us io ns as de min imi s

. Zi es mer v. Hag en , 78 5 F.3 d 12 33

, 12 36 -3 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ); W er ti sh v. Kr eu ge r , 43 3

F.3 d 10 62

, 10 66 -6 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Tak in g th e m ed ic al ex am in er’s rep or t as

ev id en ce of in

juri es su ffer ed by Ell is on , th e b r u i se s, sc rap es , an d co nt us io ns th at

Ell is on ex pe rie nc ed as a res ul t of th e al te rcat io n wit h of f i c e r s w e re li ke wis e de

min i m i s

. M c Cri ll is is th eref or e en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e cl ai m of

ex ces si ve fo rce in Co un t II, an d Lesh er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y for th e us e

of no n- le th al for ce i ns id e th e ap art m en t b efo re t he sh oo ti ng

.

* * *

A qu al ifi ed im m

un it y de fen se , al th ou gh un su cces sf ul on a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, m ay be ren ewed at tri al

. Ort iz v. Jo rd an , 56 2 U.S. 18 0, 18 4 ( 2 0 1 1 )

. At

th at po in t, th e de fen se “ m us t be ev al ua te d in li gh t of th e ch arac te r an d qu al it y of th e

ev id en ce rece iv ed in co ur t.” Id

. As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, th e of fic ers di sp ut e th e fact s

as su m ed by th e di st ric t co ur t in ru li ng on th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th ey

pr es um ab ly wil l pr es en t ev id en ce at tri al to su pp or t th ei r ve rs io n of even ts

. Eve n if

a jury fin ds t h a t t h e en try to Ell is on ’s ap art m en t or th e us e of de ad ly fo rce was

un reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t (o n pr op er m ot io n) al so

m us t co ns id er as a m at te r of la w whe th er th e act io ns of th e of fic ers vi ol at ed a cl earl y

-1 0-es ta bl is he d rig ht

. Se e And er so n v. Cre ig ht on , 48 3 U.S. 6 35

, 64 3- 44 (1 98 7)

. Giv en

th e po te nt ia l si gn ifi ca n ce of cert ai n di sp ut ed fact s to th at in qu iry, it wou ld be

ap pr op ria te fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to su bm it sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s to a jury to ai d th e

co ur t in m ak in g th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y de te rm in at io n. Se e Li tt re ll v. Fra nk li n , 38 8

F.3 d 57 8, 58 5- 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); ac co rd Gon za le z v. Dur an , 59 0 F.3d 85 5, 86 0- 61

& 8 60 n.4 (10 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Fo r th e rea s o n s s t a t e d

, th e or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y is affi rm ed in pa rt a nd rev ers ed in

pa rt. M cCri ll is is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on Co un t II , and Lesh er i s en ti tl ed

to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th os e as pe ct s of Cou nt II tha t al le ge ex ces si ve us e of no nle th al for ce i ns id e Ell is on ’s apa rtment. Th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er d en y in g q ua li fie d

im m un it y on th e cl ai m s o f un la wfu l en try by th e two of fic ers an d un reas on ab le us e

of de ad ly force by L es he r is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-