CA9: QI: without a case almost on point, you lose

A typical Fourth Amendment qualified immunity outcome on appeal: You need a case that’s obvious or a case substantially on point. Without it, you lose. Sightler v. Nisleit, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28702 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019)*:

Although the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Sightler, plausibly supports that Defendants may have violated his Fourth Amendment rights, we hold that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims because Sightler fails to “identify sufficiently specific constitutional precedents to alert [Defendants that their] particular conduct was unlawful.” Shafer v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 2017). And he does not argue that this is one of those “rare” cases in which the violation was so obvious that we must conclude that qualified immunity is inapplicable, “even without a case directly on point.” A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 455 (9th Cir. 2013).

Neither the district court nor Sightler, who has the burden of showing that the law was clearly established, “identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances as [Defendants] was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (emphasis added).

Indeed, none of the cases cited by the district court or Sightler involved either a report of a suspect who was armed with a gun and was threatening to kill a person, or a similar serious situation involving dangerous or exigent circumstances. And none involved facts like the present where a reasonable officer could have objectively believed that the plaintiff resembled the suspect’s description.

Additionally, none of the cases involved a plaintiff, who not only matched the general description of the suspect, but who was also located in very close physical and temporal proximity to the crime scene.

The district court erred by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011). Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Sightler, did not violate clearly established law. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with direction to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.