Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1668_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Per Curiam 

initial step toward Rollice and the officers’ subsequent “cor-
nering” of him in the back of the garage recklessly created 
the situation that led to the fatal shooting, such that their
ultimate use of deadly force was unconstitutional.  Id., at 
823.  As  to  qualified  immunity,  the  Court  concluded  that
several cases, most notably Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F. 3d 837 
(CA10 1997), clearly established that the officers’ conduct 
was unlawful.  981 F. 3d, at 826.  This petition followed.

We need not, and do not, decide whether the officers vio-
lated the Fourth Amendment in the first place, or whether
recklessly  creating  a  situation  that  requires  deadly  force
can itself violate the Fourth Amendment.  On this record, 
the  officers  plainly  did  not  violate  any  clearly  established 
law. 

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from
civil  liability  so  long  as  their  conduct  “does  not  violate 
clearly  established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of
which a reasonable person would have known.”  Pearson v. 
Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009).  As we have explained,
qualified immunity protects “ ‘all but the plainly incompe-
tent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ”  District of 
Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U. S. ___, ___ –___ (2018) (slip op., 
at  13–14)  (quoting  Malley  v.  Briggs,  475  U. S.  335,  341 
(1986)).

We have repeatedly told courts not to define clearly es-
tablished  law  at  too  high  a  level  of  generality.  See,  e.g., 
Ashcroft  v.  al-Kidd,  563  U. S.  731,  742  (2011).    It  is  not 
enough that a rule be suggested by then-existing precedent;
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.’ ”  Wesby, 583 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at 14) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 202 (2001)). 
Such  specificity  is  “especially  important  in  the  Fourth 
Amendment context,” where it is “sometimes difficult for an 
officer  to  determine  how  the  relevant  legal  doctrine,  here 
excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer