## Facts

- Dominic Rollice’s ex-wife called 911 seeking police help to remove Rollice, who was intoxicated and refusing to leave her garage.
- Three officers responded and spoke with Rollice at the garage doorway; Rollice appeared nervous and refused a requested pat-down.
- During the encounter, an officer stepped toward the doorway and Rollice stepped back, then walked deeper into the garage toward a workbench with tools.
- Officers followed and ordered Rollice to stop; he did not comply.
- Rollice grabbed a hammer, turned to face the officers, and held the hammer with both hands in a raised, striking posture.
- The officers backed up, drew their weapons, and repeatedly ordered him to drop the hammer.
- Rollice moved to gain an unobstructed path toward one officer, raised the hammer higher, and took a stance suggesting he might throw it or charge.
- Two officers fired and killed Rollice.
- Rollice’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on reasonableness and qualified immunity.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, reasoning a jury could find the officers recklessly created the situation and that circuit precedent clearly established a constitutional violation.

## Issues

1. Whether clearly established law, at the time of the shooting, would have put every reasonable officer on notice that using deadly force in these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment, defeating qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit in a per curiam decision.
- The Court held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the estate failed to identify precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under sufficiently similar facts.
- The Court concluded the Tenth Circuit relied on materially distinguishable cases that did not involve a suspect who ignored commands and raised a weapon as if to throw it or charge.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity bars damages unless an officer violates a statutory or constitutional right that is “clearly established.”
- “Clearly established” law must be defined with specificity and be particularized to the facts; general excessive-force statements are insufficient.
- A plaintiff must identify controlling precedent or a robust consensus of persuasive authority that places the unlawfulness of the conduct beyond debate in a similar factual context.
- Even assuming pre-shooting tactical decisions can be relevant to an excessive-force analysis, liability still requires clearly established law showing those decisions and the resulting force were unconstitutional in comparable circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, because no precedent clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force against an intoxicated person who ignores commands and raises a hammer in a manner suggesting an imminent attack, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and the Tenth Circuit’s contrary judgment was reversed.


City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S. Ct. 9 (2021)