Christopher Schurr v. Peter Lyoya, Personal Representative for the Estate of Patrick Lyoya, Deceased

Video evidence has come quite far in the 17 years since this Court decided Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). Cameras are ubiquitous in our society; they are in our pockets with surprising resolution, on our doorbells, and on the chests of law enforcement officers. Yet, the implications of videos in qualified immunity decisions have not kept pace. Courts are reluctant to rely on videos for factual findings, particularly at the pleadings stage. Scott’s central insight was not merely about contradicting the opposing party’s versions of events, but about courts’ ability to rely on objective evidence. Presently, parties can vaguely plead around video evidence to avoid an early application of qualified immunity; when the video cannot “utterly discredit” the vague pleadings, district courts conclude they cannot decide immunity questions and circuit courts find they have no jurisdiction to review such conclusions, leaving the case set to return at summary judgment with the same video and same qualified immunity questions. The results are antithetical to Scott, impractical for law enforcement, and illogical.

1. Whether Scott v. Harris permits courts to resolve qualified immunity at the pleading stage based on objective video evidence that demonstrates the implausibility of complaint allegations, even without “utterly discrediting” them?

2. Whether, upon proper consideration of video evidence under Scott v. Harris, clearly established law prohibited an officer’s use of deadly force after losing control of his taser during a prolonged physical struggle with an actively resistant suspect who remained in close physical proximity to both the officer and the operable weapon?