White v. Pauly
137 S. Ct. 548
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Late-evening road-rage incident led officers to the Pauly brothers' residence after a 911 call alleging reckless/drunk driving. Officers Truesdale and Mariscal approached the occupied house covertly; Officer White arrived later.
- The officers announced loudly (“Come out or we’re coming in”); the Paulys say they did not hear police identify themselves. The brothers armed themselves and announced they had guns.
- Daniel Pauly fired two shotgun blasts from the back door. Samuel Pauly pointed a handgun from a front window toward Officer White.
- Officer Mariscal fired at Samuel and missed; seconds later Officer White shot and killed Samuel.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force. The district court denied qualified immunity; a divided Tenth Circuit panel affirmed as to all officers (and found White’s use of deadly force possibly unreasonable and the right clearly established).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Tenth Circuit judgment, and held on the record before that court Officer White was entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant law was not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer White’s shooting of Samuel Pauly violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | White used deadly force when Samuel posed a threat; factual disputes make reasonableness for jury resolution | White responded to an occupant pointing a gun; his swift use of force was reasonable under the circumstances | Court did not decide the Fourth Amendment violation on the merits for White; focused on qualified immunity question and found law not clearly established |
| Whether White’s failure to give a warning before shooting rendered the force unreasonable | Plaintiffs: warning feasibly required; officers arriving late still must warn before deadly force when feasible | Defendants: late arrival to ongoing situation justified assuming prior identification and not second-guessing teammates; warnings not clearly required here | The panel’s conclusion that a warning was clearly required was reversed—no clearly established rule compelled that warning in these facts |
| Whether the right violated was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity does not apply | Plaintiffs: Garner/Graham and Tenth Circuit precedents established that warning is required when feasible before deadly force | Defendants: Supreme Court precedent requires particularized (not general) precedent; no precedent with sufficiently similar facts | Held for defendants: law must be particularized; general principles in Garner/Graham do not clearly establish unlawful conduct here; qualified immunity applies to White |
| Whether officers who arrive late must assume prior proper identification and procedures or must independently verify before using deadly force | Plaintiffs: late arrival does not excuse failure to warn or identify if officer witnesses deficient prior conduct | Defendants: reasonable late-arriving officer may assume prior officers followed proper procedures and need not second-guess them in split-second decisions | Court: left open factual questions about White’s exact arrival time/sightlines; but on Tenth Circuit record, no clearly established rule required White to act differently |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law must be particularized)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (plaintiff must show violation of clearly established right)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (Garner/Graham do not create clearly established law except in obvious cases)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force limits when suspect poses threat; warnings when feasible)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (general statements of law can sometimes give fair warning)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework and balancing of prongs)