CA5 explaining clearly established law, again; fair notice to police

CA5 explaining clearly established law, again. Elizondo v. Hinote, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3713 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026)*:

To demonstrate that a right was clearly established, the Elizondos must “identify[] a case in which an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment” and to “explain[] why the case clearly proscribed the conduct of that individual officer.” Joseph ex rel. Joseph v. Bartlett, 981 F.3d 319, 345 (5th Cir. 2020). “The Supreme Court strictly enforces the requirement to identify an analogous case and explain the analogy.” Id. at 346. “Abstract or general statements of legal principle untethered to analogous or near-analogous facts are not sufficient to establish a right clearly in a given context; rather, the inquiry must focus on whether a right is clearly established as to the specific facts of the case.” Vincent v. City of Sulphur, 805 F.3d 543, 547 (5th Cir. 2015). “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001).

Here, the cases proffered by the Elizondos are factually inapposite and thus could not possibly have provided Hinote with “fair notice that h[is] conduct was unlawful.” Nerio v. Evans, 974 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.