## Facts

- In 2010, Tucson police officer Andrew Kisela responded to a 911 call reporting that a woman was “acting erratically” and “hacking a tree with a kitchen knife.”
- The caller flagged down officers and provided a description of the woman with the knife and her reported behavior.
- Kisela and two other officers arrived at a house shared by Amy Hughes and her roommate, Sharon Chadwick, and observed the scene from outside a chain-link fence with a locked gate.
- Chadwick was standing in the driveway area.
- Hughes exited the house holding a large kitchen knife at her side, walked toward Chadwick, and stopped no more than about six feet away while speaking to her.
- Viewing the record in Hughes’s favor at summary judgment, Hughes appeared calm and did not point the knife at Chadwick or the officers; the officers had not observed Hughes acting aggressively upon arrival.
- All three officers drew their guns and ordered Hughes at least twice to drop the knife; there was evidence Hughes may not have heard the commands.
- Kisela did not identify himself as a police officer and did not warn Hughes that he would shoot.
- Because the fence interfered with Kisela’s line of fire, he dropped to the ground and fired four shots through the fence, injuring Hughes; less than a minute passed from the time the officers first saw Chadwick to the shooting.
- Hughes sued Kisela under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment to Kisela on qualified-immunity grounds; the Ninth Circuit reversed and denied rehearing en banc; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether, in May 2010, it was clearly established that shooting Hughes under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment, such that Officer Kisela was not entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (per curiam) reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity.
- The Court assumed without deciding that a Fourth Amendment violation may have occurred, but held that any such violation was not clearly established at the time.
- The Court concluded this was not an obvious case where any competent officer would necessarily have known the shooting was unconstitutional, given the reported erratic behavior, the knife, Hughes’s proximity to Chadwick, and the need for a quick threat assessment.
- The Court explained that the Ninth Circuit relied on precedent that did not match these facts closely enough to put the unlawfulness of Kisela’s conduct beyond debate; it also noted that the closest analogous Ninth Circuit precedent supported qualified immunity.
- Justice Sotomayor dissented (joined by Justice Ginsburg), stating that on Hughes’s version of the facts the shooting was unreasonable and clearly unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity protects officers from damages liability unless they violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the conduct.
- A right is clearly established only if existing precedent places the unlawfulness of the officer’s specific conduct beyond debate.
- In excessive-force cases, clearly established law must be defined with close attention to the facts; general statements of Fourth Amendment reasonableness typically do not provide adequate notice.
- Courts may grant qualified immunity based solely on the absence of clearly established law, without deciding whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution.
- Use-of-force cases must account for the on-scene realities confronting officers, including the need to make split-second decisions in tense and uncertain situations, especially when a potential threat to another person is perceived.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that, even assuming Kisela used excessive force when he shot Hughes as she stood near Chadwick holding a knife, controlling precedent as of May 2010 did not clearly establish that the shooting was unlawful on these particular facts; therefore, Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity and the Ninth Circuit’s denial of immunity was reversed.


Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 584 U.S.100 (2018)