City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. 9

On August 12, 2016 Joy (Rollice’s ex‑wife) called 911 saying Dominic Rollice was intoxicated in her garage and refusing to leave; officers responded.
Officers Girdner, Reed, and Vick spoke with Rollice at the garage doorway, asked to pat him down (he refused), then followed him as he walked to the back of the garage to retrieve tools.
Rollice picked up a hammer, adopted a stance as if to throw or charge, and moved toward the officers; Officers Girdner and Vick fired, killing him.
Rollice’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers, ruling force reasonable and/or barred by qualified immunity.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding a jury could find the officers had recklessly created the dangerous situation (citing Allen and other Tenth Circuit decisions) and that the unlawfulness was clearly established.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, per curiam, reversed the Tenth Circuit, holding only that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no controlling precedent clearly established their conduct as unlawful; the Court did not resolve the Fourth Amendment merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ pre‑seizure or “reckless” conduct (e.g., stepping toward/cornering Rollice) can render a later deadly shooting a Fourth Amendment violation	Rollice’s estate: officers’ initial movements and cornering recklessly created the situation that made deadly force necessary, so the subsequent shooting was unconstitutional	Officers: they engaged at a distance, did not rush or wrestle, and responded to an active threat (Rollice armed with a hammer), so force was reasonable	Court did not decide the merits; declined to find that law was clearly established on these facts
Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established precedent made their conduct unlawful	Estate: Tenth Circuit precedent (especially Allen) clearly established that reckless pre‑seizure conduct can make subsequent force excessive	Officers: existing cases are materially different; no precedent put a reasonable officer on notice that their conduct was unlawful	Held: officers are entitled to qualified immunity because no controlling case clearly established unlawfulness in these circumstances

Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1997) (Tenth Circuit decision relied on by respondent for the ‘‘reckless‑creation’’ theory)
Estate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2019) (post‑incident Tenth Circuit case cited by the court of appeals)
Sevier v. Lawrence, 60 F.3d 695 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussed dicta about pre‑seizure conduct but dismissed for jurisdictional reasons)
Hastings v. Barnes, 252 Fed. Appx. 197 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished Tenth Circuit decision involving pursuit and force; relied on by the court of appeals)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (per curiam) (qualified immunity framework and limits on using post‑incident cases to define clearly established law)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clarifies need to define clearly established law with specificity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity doctrine and two‑step inquiry)
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (noting importance of specificity in Fourth Amendment excessive‑force precedent)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (discusses the ‘‘clearly established’’ standard in excessive‑force context)