Brown v. City of Colorado Springs, 709 F. App'x 906

On May 27–29, 2012, Colorado Springs police executed a high-risk arrest warrant for Ronald Brown after reports he fired a gun and made threats; officers believed he was armed and suffered from PTSD.
TEU (tactical/SWAT) surrounded Brown’s townhome, used negotiators and tear gas, and attempted robot entries; they believed Brown was barricaded in the basement and no innocents (e.g., children) were present.
After failing to get a Fort Carson robot and unable to see into the basement, officers used a robot-delivered explosive designed with a 16x16-inch frame to blast a hole in the main-level floor to view the basement.
The blast created the hole as planned but debris fell through and seriously injured Brown, who was lying on a bed directly beneath the detonation; he suffered broken leg and shrapnel wounds.
Brown pleaded guilty to related state charges and sued the officers (individual-capacity § 1983 excessive-force claim) and the city/officials (municipal/official-capacity failure-to-train claims).
The district court denied qualified immunity; the Tenth Circuit reversed on the clearly-established-law prong and declined pendent appellate jurisdiction over municipal/official-capacity claims, remanding for judgment for officers and further proceedings on the dismissed claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right (qualified immunity) by detonating an explosive to view basement	Brown: Use of explosive was excessive force; Graham/Garner principles clearly prohibited such force where suspect not posing imminent threat.	Officers: No controlling Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent holding similar conduct unconstitutional; flashbang caselaw does not clearly prohibit their tactics under these facts.	Reversed district court: officers entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established in similar circumstances.
Whether court should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over municipal and official-capacity claims	Brown: municipal/official-capacity claims are tied to same facts and should be reviewed on appeal.	Officers/City: Court should not reach non-appealable municipal claims when appeal is resolved solely on clearly-established-law prong for individual officers.	Court declined pendent appellate jurisdiction and dismissed that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity requires that clearly established law be particularized to context)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (courts must not define clearly established law at a high level of generality in excessive-force cases)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims governed by objective-reasonableness standard)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly-force principles and limits)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate to deny qualified immunity)
Puller v. Baca, 781 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for qualified immunity on summary judgment)
Myers v. United States, 106 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1997) (flashbang use in occupied house raises serious concerns but may not be objectively unreasonable under facts)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity as an entitlement not to stand trial or face litigation burdens)