LaToya K. Benton, Administrator of the Estate of Xzavier D. Hill, Deceased v. Seth W. Layton, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a State Trooper for the State of Virginia, et al.

Whether the Fourth Amendment requires courts to apply a holistic, totality-of-thecircumstances analysis to excessive force claims, including all police conduct leading up to the use of deadly force, as reaffirmed by this Court in Barnes v. Felix, 602 U.S. (2025), rather than focusing narrowly on the instantaneous moment of firing.

Whether summary judgment is proper in excessive force cases where material facts including conflicting police commands, disputed video interpretations, and officer testimony—are contested, in light of Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), and Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014).

Whether officers who issue contradictory commands that render compliance impossible can claim qualified immunity when their conduct escalates the situation and results in the use of deadly force.

Whether courts must consider systemic racial bias and its influence on police encounters in Fourth Amendment excessive force analyses to ensure constitutional protections for marginalized communities. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner LaToya Benton is the duly appointed Administrator of the Estate of Xzavier Hill, deceased. Respondents Trooper Layton, Trooper Bone are officers of the Virginia State Police and were defendants below. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner is an individual. No corporate disclosure is required. TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented....................................................1 Parties to the Proceeding........................................... 2 Statement of the' Case................................................ 2 A. Factual Background.......................................... 2 B. Procedural History........................................... 3 Reasons for Granting the Petition................................. 4 I. Conflict with Barnes v. Felix................................ 4 II. Improper Summary Judgment Due to Disputed Facts......... 5 III. Erroneous Grant of Qualified Immunity..................... 6