Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, et al. v. Austin P. Bond, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dominic F. Rollice, Deceased

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 19-7056 · judgment December 1, 2020


GVR'd · October 18, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Four years ago, this Court unanimously rejected the Ninth Circuit’s so-called “provocation rule,” under which a police officer’s objectively reasonable use of force to effect a seizure could nonetheless be deemed a Fourth Amendment violation if the officer engaged in some “independent constitutional violation” that “intentionally or recklessly provoked a violent response.” Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539, 1545 (2017). But the Court declined to decide whether courts may “tak[e] into account” whether “unreasonable police conduct prior to the use of force … foreseeably created the need to use it” when assessing whether a seizure was reasonable. Id. at 1547 n.*. Although most circuits have continued to answer that question with a resounding no, the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have now repeatedly held that an objectively reasonable use of force can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if police “deliberately or recklessly created the situation that led to the” need to use it. App.26. In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit declared that such pre-seizure conduct was “determinative” in concluding that petitioners could be held liable for responding with lethal force when an intoxicated individual they had been asked to remove from a private residence grabbed a clawed hammer, wielded it at them, and repeatedly refused their commands to drop it. App.18. The court then held that petitioners lacked qualified immunity to boot. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether use of force that is reasonable at the moment it is employed can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers recklessly or deliberately created the need to use force.

  2. Whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that advancing toward an intoxicated individual wielding a deadly weapon inside a garage was a “reckless” act that would render unconstitutional any subsequent use of lethal force in response to a threat to officer safety.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Erin E. Murphy
Kirkland & Ellis LLP

For respondent
David Michael Shapiro

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 4 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Jan 27 2022
    Record returned to the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit (flash drive).
  2. Nov 19 2021
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  3. Oct 18 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Sheriffs' Association GRANTED.
  4. Oct 18 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Police Association GRANTED.
  5. Oct 18 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Fraternal Order of Police GRANTED.
  6. Oct 18 2021
    Petition GRANTED. Judgment REVERSED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)
  7. Oct 12 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
  8. Oct 04 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
  9. Sep 08 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
  10. Aug 31 2021
    Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The record is available on PACER.
  11. Aug 25 2021
    Record received from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit (flash drive).
  12. Aug 23 2021
    Record Requested.
  13. Aug 04 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
  14. Aug 04 2021
    Reply of petitioners City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  15. Jul 15 2021
    Brief of respondent Austin P. Bond in opposition filed.
  16. Jun 30 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Police Association.
  17. Jun 30 2021
    Amicus brief of National Fraternal Order of Police not accepted for filing. (July 02, 2021)
  18. Jun 30 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Fraternal Order of Police.
  19. Jun 22 2021
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 15, 2021.
  20. Jun 17 2021
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 1, 2021 to July 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
  21. Jun 17 2021
    Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by National Sheriffs' Association.
  22. May 27 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 1, 2021)