Document: 510 U.S. ELDERv.HOLLOWAY et al. No. 92-8579. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 10, 1994. Decided February 23, Petitioner Elder was arrested without a warrant after respondents, Idaho police officers, surrounded his house and ordered him to come out. Alleging that the arrest violated Fourth Amendment right be secure against unreasonable seizure, sued officers for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The raised defense qualified immunity, which shields public officials from actions unless their conduct in light clearly established law. District found law clear that, absent exigent circumstances, would have been required had occurred inside house. court it unclear, however, whether needed when requested an individual out surrender. Finding no controlling state or Ninth Circuit case law, granted summary judgment respondents. On appeal, Appeals noticed precedent point missed Court. States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F. 2d 890, thought, might alerted reasonable officer constitutional implications putting suspect outside held, Al-Azzawy decision could not used Elder's advantage. Although typing immunity inquiry pure question read this Court's Davis Scherer, 468 183, require plaintiffs present district court, as "legal facts," cases showing asserted established. Just appellants forfeit facts presented first instance, reasoned, so, peculiar context civil rights litigation, plaintiff may benefit on appeal neither he nor itself mentioned instance. Held: Appellate review dispositions must conducted all relevant precedents, simply those cited to, discovered by, court. rule declared by does aid doctrine's central objective—to protect undue interference with duties potentially disabling threats liability—because its operation is unpredictable advance court's adjudication. Nor further interest deterring officials' unlawful compensating victims such conduct. Instead, releases defendants because shortages counsels' legal research briefing. supra, misconstrued Appeals. did concern what authorities consider determining immunity. held only this: To defeat federal claim relief based—rather than some other right—must Whether at particular time resolved de novo appeal. A appeals reviewing should therefore use full knowledge own precedents. It left consider, authority, including respondents are entitled prevail defense. Pp. 514-516. 975 1388, reversed remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion unanimous CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Michael E. Tankersley argued cause petitioner. With briefs were Brian Wolfman, Alan B. Morrison, John Lynn, appointed Court, 806. James J. filed brief respondents.* Justice GINSBURG 1 This presents appellate according suit charging violation right, disregard authority considered We hold 2 * In April 1987, learned Charles wanted Florida authorities. They set Elder, but obtain warrant. planned apprehend workplace, area where required. See Watson, 423 411, 418, n. 6 (1976). already jobsite, resided suffered epileptic seizures during episode, instructed crawl avoid injury falling. instead, walked through doorway, immediately another fell concrete walk front He sustained serious brain trauma remains partially paralyzed. II 3 warrantless arresting doctrine like analyzed three steps. Had house, recognized, into play: 751 Supp. 858, 860 (Idaho 1990) (citing Payton New York, 445 573 (1980)). If same governed fact transpired, said, then matter circumstances triable issue. Supp., 865.1 But, concluded, requirement applied For scenario, one here, "found law." Id., 866. accordingly grounds. See, e. g., Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818 (1982) (officials "are shielded liability insofar violate statutory person known"). 4 Court: 890 (CA9 1985), cert. denied, 476 1144 (1986). observed, involved seized home. decision, published over year before arrest, "might pursuant order exit." 1391-1392 (1991).2 Indeed, explicitly "reaffirmed `it location person, agents, determines occurs within home.' [Al-Azzawy, 2d, 893] (quoting Johnson, 626 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1980), aff'd grounds, 537 . (1982))." 1391. 5 reaffirmed believed, unearthed too late. conclusion unmentioned control relied 183 (1984), particular, statement Davis: "A who seeks overcome defendant official's issue." 197 (emphasis added). "a `pure questio[n] law,'" 1392 Romero Kitsap County, 931 624, 627-628 1991)), put record, "clearly established." 1394. instance: "[T]he plaintiff's burden responding request based identify universe decisional [district] can determine allegedly 1392. certiorari, 509 921 (1993). III 7 purpose affording them "from liability." S., announced objective interests side balance: counsel's briefing.3 8 thinking compelled instruction, Scherer. administrative regulation allow 1983 Only comprehensible: ." Davis, short, concerned entirely discrete question: Is defeated violates any duty, based? latter. 193-196, 14; see 984 991, 995 1993) (Kozinski, dissenting denial reh'g en banc). 9 time, so official has suit, facts." Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 528 (1985); 818. That generality questions, Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 558 (1988). engaging "full [and relevant] precedents." 192, 9. 10 leave respondent express ultimate issue, do we officers' alternate plea tenable. 11 12 reasons stated, reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 13 ordered. Notes: Andrew Pincus Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union amicus curiae urging reversal. ofamici affirmance State Hawaii Robert A. Marks, Attorney General Hawaii, Michaels, Deputy General, Attorneys respective jurisdictions follows: M. Oberly Delaware, Larry EchoHawk Idaho, Roland W. Burris Illinois, T. Stephan Kansas, Scott Harshbarger Massachusetts, Joseph P. Mazurek Montana, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Pennsylvania, Jefferey Pine Rhode Island, Jeffrey L. Amestoy Vermont, Meyer Wyoming, Malaetasi Togafau Samoa. According depositions access guns consideration support plea. hand, started plan five days occurred, factor tug finding exigency citeAl-Azzawy, albeit elaboration. Brief Appellant 91-35146 (CA9), p. There caution: holding justified arrest. Cf. 1, supra. Circuit's number untoward effects. occasion affirmation incorrect results, 998-999 banc), place counsel trying situation. ABA Model Rule Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (1989 ed.) ("A lawyer shall knowingly:.. (3) fail disclose tribunal jurisdiction known directly adverse position client disclosed opposing counsel.")

Category: 8