Michael Hunter, et al. v. Randy Cole, et al.

On November 28, 2016, this Court granted the officers’ first petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the opinion of the Fifth Circuit denying qualified immunity, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (per curiam). After remand, a majority of the Fifth Circuit, over dissents by seven judges, continued to deny immunity to Officer Hunter and Lieutenant Cassidy based on the opinion Cole’s action of turning, gun in hand and finger on the trigger, toward Officer Hunter posed no threat, and the rationale that no existing factually similar precedent squarely governing the situation the officers encountered was necessary to fairly warn the officers their actions of firing in response to Cole’s actions obviously violated clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit also denied qualified immunity to Officer Carson for allegedly causing Cole’s pretrial detention in part by inaccurately reporting his perception of the shooting events in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though in Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), this Court held such a claim is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the questions presented are: I. If the barrel of a gun is not yet pointed directly at an officer, does clearly established federal law prohibit police officers from firing to stop a person armed with a firearm from moving a deadly weapon toward an officer if the officer has not both shouted a warning and also waited to determine whether the imminent threat to life has subsided after the warning? II. Does a police officer who inaccurately reports his perceptions of events during a dynamic shooting encounter violate clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?