## Facts

- Police received a 911 call from a 12-year-old reporting that she, her mother, and her sister barricaded themselves in a room because the mother’s boyfriend, Ramon Cortesluna, was trying to hurt them and had been using a chainsaw to break items in the house.
- Dispatch reported that the victims could not exit and that the 911 operator heard sawing, suggesting Cortesluna might be trying to cut through the door.
- Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas and other officers responded, saw a man matching Cortesluna’s description, announced police presence, and ordered him to the front door.
- Officers believed Cortesluna had a weapon; he dropped an item later identified as a metal tool after being told to “drop it.”
- Officers instructed Cortesluna to approach with hands raised and to kneel; an officer saw a knife protruding from Cortesluna’s left pocket and warned him not to lower his hands.
- Cortesluna lowered his hands; another officer fired beanbag rounds, after which Cortesluna went face-down on the ground.
- Rivas-Villegas approached, placed a foot on Cortesluna’s back, and briefly placed a knee on the left side of his back near the pocket containing the knife while pulling Cortesluna’s arms back so he could be handcuffed and disarmed; the knee contact lasted no more than eight seconds.
- Cortesluna sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force based on the knee-to-back contact.

## Issues

1. Whether existing precedent clearly established that briefly placing a knee on the back of a prone suspect with a knife in his pocket, while officers were handcuffing and disarming him during a domestic-violence response, was unconstitutional, thereby defeating qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held Rivas-Villegas was entitled to qualified immunity.
- The Court ruled that Cortesluna failed to identify precedent that placed the unlawfulness of the officer’s specific conduct beyond debate.
- The Court concluded the Ninth Circuit relied on a factually dissimilar case and framed clearly established law at too general a level.
- The case was remanded after reversal of the qualified-immunity denial.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity protects an officer unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.
- A right is clearly established only when precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate such that every reasonable officer would understand the conduct is unlawful.
- The clearly-established inquiry must be conducted in the specific factual context; broad propositions about “excessive force” are insufficient, particularly under the Fourth Amendment.
- A prior case must be closely analogous in material respects (including threat level, weapon presence, type and duration of force, and timing within the arrest) to give notice that the challenged conduct is unlawful.
- Where no Supreme Court case or robust consensus of persuasive authority addresses similar circumstances, qualified immunity generally applies.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, given the volatile domestic-violence response and the suspect’s visible knife, no clearly established precedent made it beyond debate that briefly kneeling on the suspect’s back while handcuffing and disarming him was unconstitutional, so the officer received qualified immunity.


Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4 (2021)