White v. Pauly

Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsQualified ImmunitySection 1983Fourth AmendmentExcessive Forcequalified immunityclearly established lawparticularized facts

Facts

After a road-rage report, Officers Truesdale and Mariscal went to the Pauly brothers’ rural house to speak with Daniel Pauly, even though the officers had agreed they lacked probable cause to arrest him. The brothers became aware of officers outside, shouted questions, armed themselves, and one brother yelled, "We have guns"; Officer White arrived late, heard that statement, drew his gun, and took cover behind a stone wall about 50 feet from the house. Seconds later Daniel fired two shotgun blasts from the back door, then Samuel opened a front window and pointed a handgun in White’s direction. After Mariscal fired and missed, White shot and killed Samuel about four to five seconds later without first giving a warning.

Issue

Whether Officer White, who arrived late to an ongoing police encounter and shot Samuel Pauly after Samuel pointed a handgun in his direction, violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by using deadly force without first giving a warning.

Rule

For qualified immunity, clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case and may not be defined at a high level of generality. General excessive-force principles from cases like Graham and Garner do not by themselves clearly establish unlawfulness outside an obvious case, and clearly established federal law did not prohibit a reasonable late-arriving officer in circumstances like these from assuming earlier officers had already followed proper procedures such as identification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Idaho, Deputy Nolan Kerr arrived late to an active standoff after other deputies had already surrounded a cabin. As Kerr took cover, he heard someone inside yell that the occupants were armed, and seconds later a man at a side window pointed a rifle toward Kerr; Kerr fired without warning. The plaintiff cites only broad Supreme Court statements that deadly force must be reasonable and that warnings should be given when feasible.

Is Kerr most likely entitled to qualified immunity?

Explanation. Qualified immunity turns on whether existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate in a manner particularized to the facts. The majority explained that broad principles from excessive-force cases do not by themselves clearly establish unlawfulness outside an obvious case. Where an officer arrives late to an ongoing confrontation and responds to an armed person pointing a weapon in his direction, reliance on only general warning and reasonableness language is insufficient. (Derived from White v. Pauly (n.d.).)