## Facts

- Around 3:55 a.m., Fernando Lopez sideswiped a parked SUV outside a Chicago nightclub, and bystanders swarmed his car and struck him through an open window.
- A passenger, Mario Orta, exited the vehicle and fired a “warning shot.”
- Lopez took the gun, walked toward bystanders, and fired shots into the air on a crowded street.
- Off-duty Cook County correctional officer Michael Raines arrived and observed Lopez armed and shooting.
- As Lopez moved back toward his car while still armed, Raines approached with his firearm drawn and fired multiple rounds at Lopez within a few seconds.
- Lopez dropped the gun and staggered away while Raines continued firing.
- Orta retrieved the dropped gun and fired at Raines but missed.
- Raines restrained the wounded Lopez and positioned him between himself and Orta during a multi-minute standoff until Orta fled.
- Lopez survived, later pleaded guilty to firearms charges, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force (shooting and use as a human shield).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified-immunity grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether clearly established Fourth Amendment law in 2014 prohibited Raines from using deadly force against Lopez during a rapidly unfolding incident involving public gunfire and multiple armed participants.
2. Whether clearly established Fourth Amendment law prohibited Raines from restraining Lopez and using him as cover during an ongoing standoff with Orta after Orta fired at Raines.
3. How video evidence affects the summary-judgment analysis when it contradicts a party’s characterization of events.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held Raines was entitled to qualified immunity for both the shooting and the later use of Lopez as cover.
- The court assumed arguendo a constitutional violation could be found but concluded any violation was not clearly established on materially similar facts.
- The court relied on the video record to resolve factual characterizations where the video clearly controlled.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity shields an officer unless existing precedent placed the unlawfulness of the conduct “beyond debate” in closely analogous circumstances.
- Courts may address the “clearly established” prong first and may affirm on that basis without definitively deciding whether a constitutional violation occurred.
- On summary judgment, facts are viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, but courts need not accept a version of events that is clearly contradicted by video evidence.
- Fourth Amendment excessive-force analysis is context-specific; broad propositions about reasonableness do not clearly establish unlawfulness absent factually similar authority.
- The Constitution does not require officers to select the least deadly alternative if the force used is otherwise objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed qualified immunity because Lopez failed to identify precedent clearly prohibiting either the multiple-shot use of deadly force against an armed person who had just fired in public during a chaotic encounter or the use of a wounded suspect as cover during an ongoing armed standoff after another participant fired at the officer.


Lopez v. Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2021)