## Facts

- San Francisco police officers entered an apartment after reports of drug sales.
- Inside, officers saw a bloody shirt and went upstairs, forced open a locked door, found and handcuffed Jason Martin, and recovered a knife from his pocket.
- Officers heard noises from an attic, entered the attic with guns drawn, and encountered Asa Sullivan hiding there.
- Officers ordered Sullivan to show his hands and come out; he did not comply.
- Officers claimed Sullivan made a threatening statement and appeared to hold an object resembling a weapon.
- Officers Alvis and Keesor fired, killing Sullivan; Sullivan was unarmed.
- Sullivan’s survivors brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional entry/search, unreasonable deadly force, and liability under the Ninth Circuit’s then-recognized “provocation” theory (prior Fourth Amendment violations creating the circumstances leading to the shooting).
- The district court denied the officers’ summary-judgment motion for qualified immunity due to genuine disputes of material fact; the officers took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether, taking plaintiffs’ version of disputed facts, a jury could find the officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless home entry and search, defeating qualified immunity at summary judgment.
2. Whether, taking plaintiffs’ version of disputed facts, a jury could find the use of deadly force objectively unreasonable under clearly established Fourth Amendment standards, defeating qualified immunity.
3. Whether plaintiffs could proceed on a “provocation” theory under then-controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, such that an earlier independent Fourth Amendment violation could support liability for the ensuing shooting.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation from a warrantless entry and search without a valid exception, and the governing law was clearly established.
- Genuine factual disputes about the perceived threat in the attic precluded summary judgment on the deadly-force claim; under plaintiffs’ version, clearly established law could render the shooting unreasonable.
- Under then-existing Ninth Circuit law, the provocation theory could proceed because a jury could find that independent Fourth Amendment violations unreasonably created the conditions leading to the use of deadly force.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On interlocutory review of a qualified-immunity denial at summary judgment, the court accepts the nonmovant’s version of disputed facts and asks whether those facts could show a constitutional violation of clearly established law.
- Warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable absent consent, exigent circumstances, or another recognized exception; this principle was clearly established.
- Under the Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standard, deadly force is generally permissible only when the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm; disputed facts about the threat typically require jury resolution.
- Under then-controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, officers could be liable where they intentionally or recklessly provoked a violent confrontation through an independent Fourth Amendment violation that foreseeably led to the later use of force.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that contested facts could support findings of clearly established Fourth Amendment violations for warrantless entry/search, unreasonable deadly force, and (under then-existing circuit doctrine) provocation, so the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment and the claims could proceed to trial.


Espinosa v. City & County of S.F., 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010)