Pauly v. White
817 F.3d 715
10th Cir.2016Background
- Police approached the Pauly home; occupants (Daniel and Samuel Pauly) fired warning shots and one occupant allegedly pointed a gun from inside a lighted home toward officers outside.
- Officer Mariscal fired (missed) from cover; shortly thereafter Officer White fired a fatal shot that killed Samuel Pauly. Four shots total were fired that night.
- District court denied summary judgment, resolving disputed evidence in plaintiffs’ favor on key factual points (e.g., visibility, whether Samuel was pointing a gun at Officer White, and whether warnings were given).
- The panel majority affirmed denial of qualified immunity to Officer White based on those facts, concluding a jury could find the shooting unreasonable and that the unlawfulness was clearly established.
- Petitioners sought panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; panel rehearing denied and en banc rehearing failed by an equally divided court. Several judges filed concurrences and dissents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer White is entitled to qualified immunity for the fatal shooting | Pauly: disputed facts show White shot without being endangered, failed to warn, and a jury could find the force unreasonable | White: reasonably perceived imminent threat while under cover; split-second judgment entitled to deference and qualified immunity | Denied qualified immunity at summary judgment stage; jury issues remain (panel majority) |
| Whether appellate court must accept district court’s factual findings when reviewing legal qualified-immunity questions | Pauly: appellate review must credit district-court fact findings and resolve disputes for plaintiffs on summary judgment denial | White: urges deference to officer testimony and stresses split-second judgments; some judges would resolve facts in officers’ favor | Majority credits district court and declines to substitute its own fact-finding; dissents argue majority improperly defines clearly established law |
| Whether an officer must warn or identify himself before using deadly force when under cover and facing a suspect allegedly pointing a firearm | Pauly: failure to warn and uncertainty about immediate threat supports illegality of shooting | White: no clearly established law requiring officers to call out or identify themselves under such danger; warning requirement would unduly constrain officers | Majority: factual disputes preclude immunity; dissents say majority creates a new, dangerous precedent and misapplies split-second judgment doctrine |
| Whether the unlawfulness was "clearly established" such that the law put a reasonable officer on notice | Pauly: extreme facts (killing while not endangered) are beyond debate and would put an officer on notice | White: government officials deserve latitude; precedents counsel against defining clearly established law at a high level of specificity | Majority: concludes genuine factual disputes make clear-establishment inappropriate for immunity; dissents disagree and would grant immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (appellate courts must accept district court’s factual assumptions when reviewing purely legal questions)
- Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 972 F.2d 1145 (10th Cir. 1992) (jury decides witness credibility and weight of testimony in excessive force cases)
- Tenorio v. Pitzer, 802 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2015) (denying qualified immunity where officer shot armed individual who refused orders)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (courts must avoid defining clearly established law at high levels of generality)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (reasonableness of force judged from defendant-officer’s perspective and knowledge)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity can protect reasonable mistakes of fact or law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (flexible qualified immunity framework permitting courts to address the order of prongs)