## Facts

- A police officer learned a suspect had a felony no-bail warrant and was allegedly involved in theft.
- After a reported fight at the suspect’s mother’s home, the suspect fled and hid in the neighborhood.
- Officers arrived, including a K-9 unit; nearby civilians remained in vehicles close to the driveway where the suspect’s Jeep was parked.
- The officer saw the suspect run to the Jeep, enter it, and start the vehicle despite the officer’s commands to stop.
- The officer believed the suspect’s escape in the vehicle posed a risk to nearby civilians and officers on foot in the area.
- As the Jeep began to move, the officer stepped back toward the rear driver’s-side area and fired one shot through the rear driver’s-side window, striking the suspect in the back.
- The suspect drove away, survived, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force.

## Issues

1. Whether, at the time of the shooting, clearly established Fourth Amendment law gave the officer fair notice that shooting a fleeing driver in these circumstances was unconstitutional, thereby defeating qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity.
- The Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish that her specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court emphasized that qualified-immunity analysis must be conducted in the specific factual context, not at a high level of generality.
- The Court concluded the case fell near the boundary between permissible and excessive force, and no precedent squarely governed the scenario.
- Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment on the ground that the law was not clearly established.
- Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the case should not have been resolved in the officer’s favor on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity protects an officer who, even if acting unconstitutionally, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances confronted.
- The controlling question is whether existing law provided fair notice that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.
- “Clearly established” law must be assessed in the specific context of the case; general excessive-force standards alone may be insufficient in fact-dependent settings.
- In vehicle-flight deadly-force cases, absent closely analogous precedent, an officer may receive qualified immunity where the legality of the conduct is not clearly settled.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the officer who shot a fleeing suspect as he drove away was entitled to qualified immunity because, given the fact-specific context and the state of the law at the time, it was not clearly established that the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment.


Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004)