Whether Deputy Copeland's arrest of Mr. Thompson was unconstitutional and warranted the denial of qualified immunity

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; . Whether Deputy Copeland; arrest of Mr. Thompson in (2011). Nine years after Robinson v. Solano cty., 248 F. 3d 1007(9th Cir. 2002) "was unconstitutional regarding warranted the denied of qualified , immunity for Copeland's conduct purposes. And Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept's, 756 F. 3d 1154, 1165(9th Cir. 2014). The panel majority's analysis contridicts this rule by pointing : to minor factual differences that have no bearing on Robinson's application to this case. See Supra 12-15. Whether the panel majority's misapplication of Robinson also i constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation; where Deputy Copeland used unconstitutionally excessive force, and therefore whether qualified immunity should not be available to officers who point guns at suspects under sinilar circumstances; and whether grant Deputy Copeland qualified immunity for unholstering his weapon, and pointed it at Mr. Thompson's head, and threatened to kill him if he made a wrong move, constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. : Whether the search was motivated soley by investigory intent, a relevant question is: but for his investigory intent, would Copeland have conducted the purported inventory search. : Did the District Court err when it dismissed Thompson's Loe claim. -Vil,