Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a knife-wielding suspect on open ground based on a case involving a shooting-through-doorway tactical scenario

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate constitutional rights in factual situations squarely governed by controlling case precedent that clearly establishes their conduct as unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit found that Sheriffs Deputies Erin Shepherd and Terry Reed are not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting Edmond Studdard—armed with a knife and approaching them over open ground—based solely on a Sixth Circuit case in which officers shot a suspect inside a building. Did the Sixth Circuit err in finding that a case involving a tactical scenario squarely governed a situation in which deputies faced a knife-wielding suspect on open ground? 2. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment unless the nonmoving party can produce probative evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact. Prior to shooting Edmond Studdard in self-defense, all of the deputies on the scene who could see Studdard testified that Studdard was walking toward them with a knife except Deputy Kyle Lane, who testified that he did not see Studdard walking and “didn’t see him not walking either. I was too busy focused on that knife that he had in his hand. I saw he was moving.” (emphasis added). Did this deputy’s lack of knowledge create a triable issue of fact as to whether Studdard was walking? 3. Qualified immunity protects officers who make mistakes of either fact or law. During a 30-second encounter, Deputies Reed and Shepherd perceived ii Edmond Studdard as approaching them with a knife at a distance of 10 feet or less, although hindsight reveals that Studdard may have been as far as 34 feet away for summary judgment purposes. Does Reed and Shepherd’s mistaken perception of the distance between themselves and a knife-wielding suspect during a 30-second encounter strip them of qualified immunity?