Court Opinion

ID: 9409115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-15 00:00:42.560181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.935081
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30241    Document: 00516821870         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                     FILED
                                                                 July 14, 2023
                                 No. 22-30241                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                     Clerk

   Juanita Smith; Floyd Stewart,

                                                          Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                     versus

   J. C. Lee, Officer; City of Shreveport; Corporal Barker,

                                                     Defendants—Appellants.

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 5:19-cv-1261

   Before Jones, Smith, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:
         Defendants Cpl. John Lee and Cpl. Derek Barker appeal the district
   court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking qualified
   immunity from Plaintiffs’ unlawful entry and excessive force claims. We
   unanimously conclude that Lee and Barker are not entitled to qualified
   immunity from Smith’s unlawful entry claims. Judge Jones and Judge Smith
   conclude that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity for any force employed
   from the moment he entered Smith’s house, and I dissent in part from that
   holding. Therefore, we REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part.
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

                                I. Background
                              a. Factual Background
          On October 4, 2018, the Shreveport Police Department received a tip
   that a murder suspect, Christian Combs (“Combs”), was hiding at either
   1906 State Street or 1913 State Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. The arrest
   warrant identified Combs as a thirty-three-year-old Black man. Multiple
   Shreveport Police Department officers, including Defendants Lee and
   Barker, met to develop a plan to search the two houses. The officers first
   searched the 1906 State Street home, but they did not find Combs there. The
   officers then proceeded to 1913 State Street, the home of Plaintiff Juanita
   Smith (“Smith”). Barker claims that he, Officer Eli Travis, and one of the
   detectives went to Smith’s front door. One of them knocked, and Smith
   answered. They explained they were looking for Combs when Smith
   answered the door. Smith told them she did not know Combs.
          At this point, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ stories diverge. The officers
   asked Smith if anyone else was inside the home, and Smith responded no.
   However, Smith claims she thought they were only asking if Combs was
   inside. Another officer, Leo Fartaczek, testified that he was at the front of the
   house with Barker and asked Smith for consent to enter her home. However,
   in his police report, Fartaczek stated he “took position in the rear of the
   residence. [Canine Officer] Lee was in the rear with me while Barker made
   contact with the homeowner, Juanita Smith at the front door.” Smith denies
   that any officer asked her for permission to enter her home. Barker claims he
   asked Smith to step outside of her home and that she agreed, but Smith claims
   Barker stepped inside her house to prevent her from going back in. No video
   or audio exists to confirm or refute what was said or done during this
   encounter at the front door. Smith ultimately walked out of her house and
   into her driveway.

                                          2
Case: 22-30241       Document: 00516821870           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

          During this encounter, Lee, a canine officer, was stationed at the back
   of the house. He was then called to the front of the house. According to
   Barker, the two of them switched places and Barker took up a position at the
   rear of the house. Lee claims that on his way to the front of the house, Barker
   told him they were “good to go.” Lee also claims he asked Smith if anyone
   else was inside the house before entering.
          Lee contends that he went to the front door and gave three loud
   warnings telling anyone inside that a police canine was present and they
   should come out and identify themselves. During the third warning, he says
   he warned the dog would enter and bite. Smith said she did not hear any
   warnings before Lee entered the house. But it is undisputed that Lee entered
   Smith’s home and gave his canine, Dice, the instruction to bite whomever he
   encountered inside the house. After entering, Dice found Plaintiff Floyd
   Stewart. According to Lee, he lost sight of Dice when the dog entered the
   room Stewart was in. Stewart is a Black man who was seventy-eight years old
   at the time. He was sleeping when he heard noise outside and put his shoes
   on. When he was leaving the bedroom, Dice bit him. According to Stewart,
   he could see an officer standing in the hall when Dice first bit him. Lee says
   that when he heard Dice engage with someone, he proceeded toward the
   sound, recognized that the person Dice was biting was not Combs, and
   immediately got Dice to release the bite. According to Stewart, Dice bit him
   multiple times. He pushed the dog off once, but the dog came back to bite
   him again. Meanwhile, Stewart claims Lee stood by while Dice was biting him
   and did not immediately command Dice to stop the attack. Stewart claims
   the incident lasted at least a minute before Lee commanded Dice to release
   the bite. As a result of the attack, Stewart sustained puncture wounds and
   lacerations to his left thumb, left calf, and left thigh.
          Lee had a body camera, and he thought he activated it before he
   entered Smith’s home. He said it is department policy for canine officers to

                                            3
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870            Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

   activate their body cameras once they get their canines out. However, it was
   switched on only after Dice bit Stewart. In the footage after the search, Lee
   asks two of the detectives if they talked to Smith at the door. One of the
   detectives responds that it was Barker who spoke to her. Lee then asks Barker
   if he “asked” Smith. Barker responds that he did not, and he does not know
   if anyone did. At this point, it sounds like Lee responds, “I should have asked
   her.” However, in his deposition, Lee claims he actually said, “he [Barker]
   should have asked her.” (emphasis added). Lee maintained that he asked
   Smith if anyone else was inside before entering.
                               b. Procedural History
          Plaintiffs sued Lee, Barker, Officer Christopher McConnell, and the
   City of Shreveport alleging federal claims of unlawful entry, excessive force,
   and failure to train. They also brought state law claims for trespass, battery,
   strict liability, excessive force, and negligence.
          Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified
   immunity on behalf of all individual Defendants and seeking dismissal of
   Plaintiffs’ Monell and state law claims. The district court dismissed the
   Monell claim against Shreveport and all claims against McConnell. Smith v.
   Lee, 599 F. Supp. 3d 440, 463 (W.D. La. 2022). It denied the motion in all
   other respects. Id. Lee and Barker now appeal the denial of qualified
   immunity from the unlawful entry and excessive force claims against them.
                                II. Jurisdiction
          In appeals of orders denying qualified immunity, we only have
   jurisdiction to review “the purely legal question [of] whether a given course
   of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established
   law.” Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 347 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “[W]e
   can review the materiality of any factual disputes, but not their genuineness.”
   Id. (citing Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir.2000)).

                                           4
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870            Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

                          III. Standard of Review
          Because we lack the authority to review the district court’s decision
   that a genuine factual dispute exists, we do not apply the ordinary summary
   judgment standard in an interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of
   qualified immunity. Kinney, 367 F.3d at 348. Instead, we “consider only
   whether the district court erred in assessing the legal significance of the
   conduct that the district court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of
   summary judgment.” Id. Where factual disputes exist in an interlocutory
   appeal asserting qualified immunity, we accept the plaintiff’s version of the
   facts as true. Id. When the district court fails to set forth the factual disputes
   that preclude granting summary judgment, we may be required to review the
   record in order “to determine what facts the district court, in the light most
   favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed.” Id. (citing Johnson v.
   Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319, (1995)). Our review of the district court’s
   conclusions concerning the materiality of the facts is de novo. Id. at 349.
                                 IV. Discussion
          Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified
   immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar 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). We apply a two-part test: (1) whether the plaintiff
   has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right
   was clearly established at the time of the violation. Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d
   517, 522 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Both questions are matters of law.
   Id.
                        a. Smith’s Unlawful Entry Claims
          Smith alleges that Barker and Lee violated her Fourth Amendment
   rights by entering her home without consent or any other legal justification.

                                            5
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870          Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-30241

   Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless intrusion into a person’s home
   is “presumptively unreasonable unless the person consents, or unless
   probable cause and exigent circumstances justify” the intrusion. Gates v.
   Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regul. Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 420 (5th Cir. 2008).
   There are two forms of consent: explicit and implicit. Implicit consent “can
   be inferred from silence or failure to object to a search only if that silence
   follows a request for consent.” United States v. Staggers, 961 F.3d 745, 757
   (5th Cir. 2020). Implicit consent based on silence or failure to object must
   “follow[] a police officer’s explicit or implicit request for consent.” United
   States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474, 484 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “It
   is well established that a defendant’s mere acquiescence to a show of lawful
   authority is insufficient to establish voluntary consent.” United States v.
   Jaras, 86 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 1996). Without more, “[s]ilence or passivity
   cannot form the basis for consent to enter.” Roe v. Texas Dep’t of Protective &
   Regul. Servs., 299 F.3d 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2002).
        i. Whether Smith Has Alleged Fourth Amendment Violations
          We begin at the first step: whether Smith has sufficiently alleged a
   violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Defendants do not contend that
   any other exception to the warrant requirement was present to justify a
   warrantless entry. Rather, they claim both officers are entitled to qualified
   immunity because they reasonably believed Smith consented to their entry.
          Turning first to Smith’s unlawful entry claim against Barker, she
   claims she was barefoot and wanted to retrieve her shoes when Barker
   stepped inside her home to block her from going back inside. Defendants
   acknowledge the factual dispute over whether any officer expressly requested
   permission and whether Smith expressly gave officers permission to enter
   her home. They then claim the district court only identified a factual dispute
   over whether the officers explicitly requested permission to enter the home.

                                         6
Case: 22-30241        Document: 00516821870          Page: 7    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

   However, the district court identified a broader factual dispute. Namely,
   whether the officers made a request, explicit or implicit, for permission to
   enter Smith’s home. Smith, 599 F. Supp. 3d at 454 (“Under Smith’s version
   of the facts, there was no explicit or implicit request for permission to enter,
   and thus there was no consent.”). Nevertheless, Defendants argue that when
   Barker allegedly entered Smith’s home, he reasonably believed she had
   consented to a search of her home because the officers had explained they
   were looking for Combs and asked Smith if anyone else was inside her
   residence.
             As this court has previously held, an implicit or explicit request for
   consent is a necessary predicate to a finding of implicit consent based on a
   subject’s silence or failure to object to a search. Escamilla, 852 F.3d at 484. If
   the officers at the front door did not request permission to enter Smith’s
   home either implicitly or explicitly, then they could not reasonably believe
   that Smith’s silence or acquiescence gave them permission to enter. At most,
   they asked if anyone else was inside the home, but that does not amount to
   an express or implied request to enter her home. Without such a request,
   Smith’s silence cannot amount to consent for Barker to enter her home. Roe,
   299 F.3d at 402. Furthermore, the dispute over whether Barker entered
   Smith’s home to prevent her from returning inside is material since an
   intrusion into someone’s residence without legal justification, even if only by
   “a fraction of an inch,” violates the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United
   States, 533 U.S. 27, 37 (2001). Accepting Smith’s version of the facts as true,
   she has sufficiently alleged that Barker violated her Fourth Amendment
   rights.
             Turning next to Smith’s unlawful entry claim against Lee, Defendants
   argue that “[i]t should have been obvious to any person in Ms. Smith’s
   situation that Cpl. Lee intended to enter her home with a canine, and at no
   time did Ms. Smith voice any objections or tell any officer on scene that they

                                            7
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870            Page: 8   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

   could not enter her home.” Again, if the officers did not request permission
   to enter Smith’s home either implicitly or explicitly, then they could not
   reasonably believe that Smith’s silence or acquiescence gave them
   permission to enter. According to Smith, the officers asked her if anyone else
   was inside her home. Barker then stepped into her house to block her from
   going back inside. She was then told to leave her house and stand in her
   driveway. The house was surrounded by other officers. There is a genuine
   factual dispute over whether Lee asked Smith if anyone else was inside her
   home before entering, so we assume that he did not ask. At this point, Lee
   went to the front door, entered Smith’s home, and released Dice in the
   house. As Smith stated, “[s]he did not feel she was in a position to object. It
   was like the police were going to do whatever they wanted regardless of what
   she had to say.” Accepting Plaintiffs’ version of the facts as true, the officers
   never directed any express or implied request at Smith to enter her home.
   Without such a request, Smith’s acquiescence cannot amount to consent.
   Jaras, 86 F.3d at 390 (“mere acquiescence to a show of lawful authority is
   insufficient to establish voluntary consent.”).
          However, there is a crucial fact issue with respect to Lee that the
   district court did not directly address. Namely, whether Lee reasonably
   believed the other officers asked for consent before entering Smith’s house.
   Again, Lee was stationed at the back of the house while the other officers
   spoke with Smith at her front door. According to Lee, Barker told him they
   were “good to go” when they traded places, which he understood to mean
   that the other officers had acquired Smith’s consent. Defendants claim Lee
   reasonably relied on this statement, so his search of Smith’s residence was
   not a constitutional violation. Barker’s alleged statement is material because
   Lee is entitled to reasonably rely on information provided to him by other
   officers. Gates, 537 F.3d at 430 (“the Supreme Court has held that police

                                          8
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870           Page: 9   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-30241

   officers may act on the basis of information known by their colleagues in
   conducting searches and seizures.”). As we held in Gates,
          Because TDPRS concluded that it was necessary to remove the
          Gates children, the Fort Bend deputies were entitled to
          reasonably rely on TDPRS’s assessment of the situation. The
          Fort Bend deputies’ reliance was reasonable in this case
          because the deputies were aware that the TDPRS employees
          had questioned the children for several hours, which would
          indicate that TDPRS was making an informed decision.
   Id. at 431 (emphasis added).
          Plaintiffs first challenge this argument by contesting whether Barker
   even uttered these words. Second, they argue that even if Barker told Lee
   they were “good to go,” the statement is too vague to communicate that the
   other officers had acquired Smith’s consent. Since the district court did not
   weigh in on these disputes, we have independently reviewed the record “to
   determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the
   nonmoving party, likely assumed.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 348 (citation
   omitted).
          In his deposition, Lee explained that he would have to be satisfied that
   he had permission to enter Smith’s home since he was the one entering with
   the canine. He also explained that the officers held a meeting before both
   searches where it was “very clear that we had to have [permission] before we
   could enter the homes.” According to Lee, Barker would not have told him
   they were good to go if he did not have Smith’s consent. In his affidavit, Lee
   again stated he “was advised that [they] were ‘good to go,’ which meant
   officers had obtained consent to search.”
          In his deposition, Barker testified that he did not ask for consent to
   search Smith’s house. He also did not recall if any other officer asked for
   consent to search Smith’s house. However, Barker later claimed in his

                                         9
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870            Page: 10   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

   affidavit that “based on all discussions that had occurred with Ms. Smith on
   her front porch, [he] believed Ms. Smith consented to a search of her home.”
   Nowhere in Barker’s police report, deposition, or affidavit does he attest to
   telling Lee they were “good to go” when they switched places.
          While it may have been reasonable in this context for Lee to rely on
   Barker’s “good to go” statement as communicating that the officers had
   gained consent, there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether this statement
   was made. Lee claims Barker would not have told him they were good to go
   if he did not have Smith’s consent. But Barker admitted at the time of his
   deposition that he did not ask for consent and did not recall if any other officer
   had. He also never attested to saying these words to Lee. This dispute is
   material because Lee based his belief that the other officers had obtained
   consent on this purported statement. If the statement was never made, then
   that places Lee in the same factual scenario as Barker. Since the district court
   denied qualified immunity to Lee for unlawful entry, it likely assumed
   Plaintiffs’ version of this factual dispute.
           Accepting Plaintiffs’ version of the facts as true, Lee entered Smith’s
   home without implicitly or explicitly requesting Smith’s consent to enter and
   without any basis to believe that any other officer had acquired Smith’s
   consent to enter. Accordingly, Smith has sufficiently alleged that Lee
   violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
   ii. Whether Smith’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established
          At the second step, we must determine whether Smith’s Fourth
   Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the violation.
   Cooper, 844 F.3d at 522. Smith’s right to not have her home searched without
   a warrant, consent, or other legal justification was clearly established in 2018.
   “[T]he law regarding consent and exigent circumstances has been clearly

                                           10
Case: 22-30241        Document: 00516821870               Page: 11       Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                          No. 22-30241

   established for some time.” Gates, 537 F.3d at 424.1 More specifically, it is
   “well established that a defendant’s mere acquiescence to a show of lawful
   authority is insufficient to establish voluntary consent.” Jaras, 86 F.3d at
   390; see also Roe, 299 F.3d at 402 (“[s]ilence or passivity cannot form the
   basis for consent to enter” a home). Accepting Plaintiffs’ version of the facts
   as true, the officers did not implicitly or explicitly request permission to
   enter, but Barker and Lee entered her home anyway. In such a scenario, both
   Barker and Lee’s entry “would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly
   established law.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 347. Every reasonable officer would
   know they cannot enter a house based on the occupant’s silence without first
   making an implicit or explicit request to enter. Lee and Barker are not entitled
   to qualified immunity from Smith’s unlawful entry claims at this stage.
                          b. Stewart’s Excessive Force Claim
           Stewart alleges that Lee violated his Fourth Amendment right to be
   free from excessive force by releasing Dice into the house with instructions
   to bite and allowing Dice to continue to bite him. To prevail on his excessive
   force claim, Stewart must show “(1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and
   only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness
   of which was clearly unreasonable.” Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d
   379, 382 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “[O]fficers must assess not only
   the need for force, but also ‘the relationship between the need and the

           1
             The Supreme Court has recently expressed uncertainty about whether circuit-
   level precedent qualifies as controlling authority for purposes of qualified immunity. D.C.
   v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 591 n.8 (2018). However, the Court previously held that officers
   were entitled to qualified immunity because “the Petitioners have not brought to our
   attention any cases of controlling authority in their jurisdiction at the time of the incident
   which clearly established the rule on which they seek to rely, nor have they identified a
   consensus of cases of persuasive authority such that a reasonable officer could not have
   believed that his actions were lawful.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999) (emphasis
   added). Accordingly, we look to both Supreme Court precedent and our binding precedent
   as controlling for purposes of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Cooper, 844 F.3d at 524.

                                                11
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870            Page: 12    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

   amount of force used.’” Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir.
   2009) (per curiam) (quoting Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir.
   1999)). “The injury must be more than a de minimis injury and must be
   evaluated in the context in which the force was deployed.” Glenn v. City of
   Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001). Defendants do not contest that the
   alleged puncture wounds and lacerations to Stewart’s left thumb, left calf,
   and left thigh amount to a constitutionally cognizable injury. Defendants also
   do not contest that Lee used force by releasing Dice into the home with the
   instruction to bite whomever he encountered inside the house. Whether the
   force used was “excessive” or “unreasonable” depends on “the facts and
   circumstances of [this] particular case.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
   396 (1989). For this inquiry, we look to the Graham factors: “the severity of
   the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the
   safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or
   attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id.
                              i. From the Initial Entry
          Stewart first argues that because Lee illegally entered Smith’s home,
   deploying Dice with the instruction to bite was excessive to begin with. The
   district court found that Stewart had alleged a constitutional violation after
   applying the Graham factors to Stewart. Smith, 599 F. Supp. 3d at 456. At the
   second step of the QI analysis, it concluded that “an officer cannot commit
   an unauthorized entry into a private residence and then release a police dog
   on whomever happens to be inside.” Id. at 457. There are two problems with
   this analysis. First, while Stewart was not suspected of any crime and posed
   no threat to others, he is not the proper subject of the Graham inquiry because
   he is not the suspect the officers were looking for. In this scenario, the factors
   should be applied to Combs. Second, we have held in an analogous context
   that a “[plaintiff’s] excessive force claim is separate and distinct from her
   unlawful arrest claim, and we must therefore analyze the excessive force

                                          12
Case: 22-30241         Document: 00516821870                 Page: 13         Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                             No. 22-30241

   claim without regard to whether the arrest itself was justified.” Freeman v.
   Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 417 (5th Cir. 2007). Stewart’s excessive force claim is
   separate and distinct from Smith’s unlawful entry claim, so we analyze the
   use of force without regard to the lawfulness of Lee’s entry.
            Applying the first Graham factor to Combs, he was wanted for second
   degree murder—undoubtedly one of the most severe offenses. As to the
   second factor, the arrest warrant alleged that Combs shot and killed another
   man, so the officers had reason to believe he was dangerous. One officer
   claimed that the person who provided the tip on Combs’ whereabouts also
   stated that Combs was armed. Lastly, the officers believed that Combs was
   hiding at the time. Given the apparent danger of this suspect and situation,
   Lee’s decision to deploy Dice with the command to bite and hold the first
   person he found inside the house was reasonable. Therefore, Stewart has not
   alleged a constitutional violation for any force used between the time Lee
   entered Smith’s house and the time he realized that the person Dice was
   biting was not Combs.
                                 ii. The Duration of the Bite2
            In the alternative, Stewart argues that the duration of the dog bite was
   objectively unreasonable. Stewart, however, has not raised a genuine,
   material fact issue that the law was so clear that no reasonable officer facing
   a similar situation would have acted as did Officer Lee. See Brosseau v.
   Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201, 125 S. Ct. 596, 600 (2004). For this excessive
   force claim, Officer Lee is entitled to qualified immunity. 3

            2
              Judge Graves dissents from this part of the opinion, written by Judge Jones and joined by
   Judge Smith.
            3
              Because no “existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the specific facts at issue,” we elect
   to begin and end our qualified immunity analysis at the second step. See Garcia v. Blevins, 957 F.3d
   596, 600 (5th Cir. 2020) (“We can analyze the prongs in either order or resolve the case on a single
   prong.”).

                                                   13
Case: 22-30241          Document: 00516821870                  Page: 14         Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                              No. 22-30241

            According to Stewart, he heard some commotion outside and got up
   from his bed. He walked toward the bedroom door and met Dice, who started
   to bite him on his leg. At this point, Lee was not in the bedroom, but was at
   the nearby hallway door to the living room. It is undisputed that Dice started
   biting Stewart outside of Lee’s line of sight.4 Dice bit Stewart on the lower
   leg; Stewart pushed him off; Dice then bit Stewart on the hand; Stewart
   kicked him off; Dice finally bit Stewart on the thigh. Only then did Lee appear
   in the bedroom doorway.5 Stewart yelled three or four times “get your dog
   off,” and within three seconds, Lee released Dice. Lee’s testimony adds that
   Dice did not respond to his initial verbal command, but let go after Lee
   grabbed Dice’s collar while still giving the command. When pressed at his
   deposition to state how long the dog was biting him, Stewart responded, “I
   couldn’t say.” Later, in his sworn declaration, Stewart stated that he believed
   Dice was biting him for “at least a minute.”
            This train of events distinguishes Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th
   Cir. 2016), the only binding precedent cited by Stewart for a supposedly
   “clearly established” rule that “when no reasonable officer could conclude
   that a suspect poses an immediate threat to law enforcement officers or
   others, it is unreasonable to use K9 force to subdue a suspect who is
   complying with officer instructions.” Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 905 F.3d

            4
              The dissent disagrees and states that “Stewart recounts seeing an officer in the hallway
   when Dice first bit him.” Throughout this litigation, Stewart has insisted that Lee lost sight of Dice.
   Numerous record references support this statement.
            5
              The dissent states that “[n]othing in the record dictates this conclusion.” To the
   contrary, the chronology of events according to Stewart’s own declaration has Dice biting Stewart
   multiple before times before Lee “appeared in the doorway.”

                                                     14
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870            Page: 15    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

   310, 322 (5th Cir. 2018) (alterations adopted and quotation omitted)
   (articulating the legal principle clearly established in Cooper).6
          In that case, Cooper was pulled over for a suspected DUI, panicked,
   and fled on foot into a residential neighborhood. Cooper, 844 F.3d at 521.
   Responding to the call for back-up, an officer and his K9 unit found Cooper
   and the dog bit Cooper on the leg. Id. Cooper had not attempted to flee or
   strike the dog and was obviously unarmed. Id. The canine officer witnessed
   the initial bite. While Cooper was still gripped by the canine’s teeth, the
   officer ordered Cooper to show his hands and submit, roll on his stomach,
   and finally, the officer handcuffed him. Id. Only then, one to two minutes
   after the initial bite, did the officer order the dog to release Cooper, who
   suffered serious and prolonged injuries. Id. This court affirmed the denial of
   qualified immunity to the canine officer. Id. at 526. But the opinion is
   confined to the facts of the case, and it held, “subjecting a compliant and non-
   threatening arrestee to a lengthy dog attack was objectively unreasonable.”
   Id. at 524–25. The court refused to “say that any application of force to a
   compliant arrestee is per se unreasonable,” and we explicitly declined to
   “opine on the line of reasonableness.” Id. at 524.
          For several reasons, Cooper does not squarely govern the “specific
   facts at issue” in this case. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018).
   First, this is not a case where the officer is accused of siccing a police dog on
   an unarmed and compliant suspect. Cf. Cooper, 844 F.3d at 521; Priester v.
   City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 923–24 (11th Cir. 2000); Edwards v.
   Shanley, 666 F.3d 1289, 1293 (11th Cir. 2012). As discussed above, Lee was
   on the hunt for a murderer, not a drunk driver. Second, unlike the officer in

          6
             The Supreme Court “has not yet decided what precedents—other than [its]
   own—qualify as controlling authority for purposes of qualified immunity.” Wesby,
   138 S. Ct. at 591 n.8.

                                          15
Case: 22-30241          Document: 00516821870                  Page: 16        Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                              No. 22-30241

   Cooper, Lee did not see the initial bite. Rather, he sent Dice into the house
   and heard the dog encounter someone, whom he fully expected to be the
   murder suspect. Third, Dice was biting Stewart for some amount of time
   before Lee appeared in the bedroom doorway. In contrast, the officer in
   Cooper was present for the complete duration of the bite. Fourth, Lee released
   Dice before handcuffing Stewart. Finally, Lee did not order an already-
   compliant, unarmed suspect to further prostrate himself while being bitten.
   In fact, the only commands given were from Stewart to Lee to “get your dog
   off,” which Lee did a few seconds later.
            In sum, except as in Cooper, including the significant fact that the dog
   was deployed as a wholly duplicative means of detention, no precedent
   establishes under analogous circumstances how long a bite is too long. Thus,
   a jury could not find that every reasonable officer would have known that a
   K9-trained dog had to be released more quickly. Even if Officer Lee
   mistakenly permitted Dice to bite Stewart for a minute, qualified immunity
   shields him from suit as well as liability.
                                        V. Conclusion
            Lee and Barker are not entitled to qualified immunity from Smith’s
   unlawful entry claims. But Lee is entitled to qualified immunity for any force
   employed from the moment he entered Smith’s house.7 Therefore, we
   REVERSE in part and AFFIRM in part.8

            7
               Judge Graves dissents in part from this holding. He would find that Lee is entitled to
   qualified immunity for any force employed between the time he entered Smith’s house and the time
   he recognized that Stewart was not Combs, but that he is not entitled to qualified immunity to the
   extent that he allowed Dice to continue biting Stewart for a lengthy period of time after realizing he
   was not Combs.
             8
               We also DENY Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                    16
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870            Page: 17   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

   James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
          Because I would find that Lee is not entitled to qualified immunity
   from Stewart’s excessive force claim based on the duration of the bite, I
   dissent from the majority’s analysis and conclusion in part IV.b.ii.
          According to Lee, he had Dice on a twenty-foot leash and briefly lost
   sight of the dog when it entered the room where Stewart was. When Lee
   heard Dice engage with someone, he moved towards the sound, recognized
   that the person Dice was biting was not Combs, and immediately got Dice to
   release the bite. According to Stewart, he was moving past the corner of the
   bed in the room when Dice first bit him on the leg. At that point, he could see
   an officer in the hallway. He pushed the dog off with his hands, but then Dice
   began biting his hand. He then pushed Dice off with his feet, but Dice began
   biting his thigh. While biting him, Dice would shake his head back and forth
   causing Stewart more pain. When Lee appeared in the doorway, “he just
   stood there silently observing the attack.” Stewart yelled three or four times
   for Lee to get the dog off him, but he did not get Dice to release until at least
   the third time. Stewart claims Dice was biting him for at least a minute. The
   district court identified genuine, material factual disputes that prevented
   summary judgment on this claim: “Even if the initial use of force, i.e., the
   initial bite, could be deemed reasonable under a version of the facts more
   favorable to Defendants, Corporal Lee still acted unreasonably in allowing
   Dice to bite multiple times over an extended duration.” Smith, 599 F. Supp.
   3d at 456.
          Instead of viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Stewart and
   drawing reasonable inferences in his favor, the majority resolves numerous
   genuine factual disputes in Lee’s favor. First, the majority claims “it is
   undisputed that Dice started biting Stewart outside of Lee’s line of sight.”
   But Stewart recounts seeing an officer in the hallway when Dice first bit him.

                                          17
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870            Page: 18   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30241

   Given the evidence before us, it is possible that 1) Lee was the officer Stewart
   saw in the hallway, and 2) Dice started biting Stewart within Lee’s line of
   sight. Second, the majority claims that Lee first appeared in the bedroom
   doorway only after Dice bit Stewart for the third time. Nothing in the record
   dictates this conclusion, and a reasonable inference can be drawn in Stewart’s
   favor that Lee appeared in the doorway before then. Third, the majority notes
   that “Stewart yelled three or four times ‘get your dog off,’ and within three
   seconds, Lee released Dice.” While Stewart claims Lee released Dice after
   the third time he called out, a genuine factual dispute remains as to how much
   time transpired between each time Stewart yelled for Lee to get the dog off
   him. To the extent the majority implies that Stewart yelled three or four times
   in rapid succession, that would again resolve this factual dispute in Lee’s
   favor. Finally, the majority notes a tension between Stewart’s deposition
   testimony and declaration regarding the duration of the bite. The district
   court identified this factual dispute as genuine by crediting Stewart’s claim
   that the bite lasted at least a minute, and we do not have jurisdiction to second
   guess that finding. Id. (“When construed in Stewart’s favor, the facts are that
   . . . Stewart suffered multiple bite wounds in an encounter that lasted at least
   one minute.”); Kokesh v. Curlee, 14 F.4th 382, 390 (5th Cir. 2021) (“the
   district court’s finding that a genuine factual dispute exists is a factual
   determination that this court is prohibited from reviewing in this
   interlocutory appeal.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
   (emphasis in original).
          Relying on this court’s decision in Cooper v. Brown, Stewart argues
   that Lee should not receive qualified immunity at this stage. 844 F.3d 517 (5th
   Cir. 2016). I agree. Cooper sets forth the clearly established law: “subjecting
   a compliant and non-threatening arrestee to a lengthy dog attack [is]
   objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 525. In order to reach this principle, this
   court relied on an excessive force case where an officer slammed a compliant

                                          18
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870           Page: 19    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-30241

   arrestee’s face into a vehicle and another where an officer tased a non-
   threatening arrestee. Id. We explained that Cooper’s right was clearly
   established because “[o]ur caselaw makes certain that once an arrestee stops
   resisting, the degree of force an officer can employ is reduced.” Id. at 524.
   The fact that those two cases did not involve dog bites did not shield the
   officer because the “[l]awfulness of force . . . does not depend on the precise
   instrument used to apply it. Qualified immunity will not protect officers who
   apply excessive and unreasonable force merely because their means of
   applying it are novel.” Id. at 525 (quoting Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757,
   763-64 (5th Cir. 2012)).
          The majority first claims that the “the opinion [in Cooper] is confined
   to the facts of the case,” because the court did not “say that any application
   of force to a compliant arrestee is per se unreasonable,” and did not “opine
   on the line of reasonableness.” Id. at 524. Nevertheless, since the officer
   subjected Cooper to a lengthy dog attack even after he was compliant, this
   court “state[d] only the obvious: Under the facts in this record, permitting a
   dog to continue biting a compliant and non-threatening arrestee is objectively
   unreasonable.” Id. And as discussed above, the clearly established law
   outlined in Cooper applies with equal force to this case.
          The majority next attempts to distinguish Cooper by claiming that this
   is “not a case where the officer is accused of siccing a police dog on an
   unarmed and compliant suspect.” But in Cooper, the officer “continued
   applying force even after Cooper was actively complying with his orders.” Id.
   at 523. Thus, Cooper was not just about the initial decision to sic a police dog
   on a suspect; it was about the decision to “permit[] a dog to continue biting
   a compliant and non-threatening arrestee.” Id. at 524. Here, Lee employed
   Dice to search for Combs, but Lee claims it was immediately apparent to him
   that the man Dice was biting was not Combs. Once Lee realized that he was
   not Combs but a seventy-eight-year-old bystander, the Graham factors no

                                          19
Case: 22-30241      Document: 00516821870            Page: 20    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                      No. 22-30241

   longer weighed in Lee’s favor. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
   The man Dice was biting was not Combs, so there was no crime at issue and
   no reason to believe that Stewart posed an immediate threat to the safety of
   officers or others. Id. As to the third factor, there is no indication that Stewart
   was resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Id. This realization is akin to the
   moment where Cooper began actively complying with the canine officer’s
   orders—at that point in time, he was compliant and non-threatening, so the
   need for force was substantially reduced. Cooper, 844 F.3d at 523. Thus,
   Cooper still applies to the extent that Lee permitted Dice to continue to bite
   Stewart even after realizing he was not the suspect they were seeking.
          The majority also claims that “no precedent establishes under
   analogous circumstances how long a bite is too long.” To be sure, Cooper did
   not set a bright-line rule for exactly how many seconds amounts to an
   unconstitutional dog attack on a compliant subject—it instead held that
   “subjecting a compliant and non-threatening arrestee to a lengthy dog attack
   was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 525. While Cooper did not define what
   a “lengthy” dog attack is, one lasting one to two minutes clearly falls within
   this category. Id. at 521. A genuine material factual dispute remains over how
   long Lee permitted Dice to continue biting Stewart after realizing he was not
   Combs. Again, the district court identified a genuine fact dispute as to
   whether the biting lasted at least one minute. During his deposition, Stewart
   testified that “about three seconds” passed between when he last yelled at
   Lee to release the dog and when Lee released Dice. In his declaration, Stewart
   states that he yelled “at least three times before the officer got the dog to
   release.” Stewart also testified in his deposition that “[Lee] just st[oo]d up
   in that door there and that dog kept biting on me,” and that Lee released Dice
   “[a]fter [Dice] bit so long.” Reading this evidence in Stewart’s favor, the
   moment that Lee pulled Dice off Stewart could have taken place long after
   the moment he realized Stewart was not Combs. The majority again attempts

                                           20
Case: 22-30241     Document: 00516821870          Page: 21   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                   No. 22-30241

   to distinguish Cooper by stating “Dice was biting Stewart for some amount of
   time before Lee appeared in the bedroom doorway,” but that only underlines
   the genuine factual dispute in this case. We do not know what amount of time
   transpired between the moment Dice first bit Stewart, the moment Lee
   appeared in the doorway, and the moment Lee realized Stewart was not
   Combs. Assuming the bite lasted longer than a minute as we must, a material
   factual dispute remains as to whether Lee permitted Dice to continue biting
   Stewart for a lengthy period after realizing he was not Combs.
          For these reasons, I would find that Lee is not entitled to qualified
   immunity because Cooper gave him fair warning that subjecting a compliant
   and non-resisting subject to a lengthy dog attack is a violation of clearly
   established law. Id. at 525.

                                        21