1. When the unconstitutionality of an officials' conduct is reasonably obvious, does that suffice to render the violation of those constitutional rights clearly established, as the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have recognized in similar cases, or must there also be binding precedent under the same specific facts, as the Eleventh Circuit held below?

2. Are government officials entitled to qualified immunity so long as there is no prior appellate precedent recognizing the unconstitutionality of an identical fact pattern, as the Eleventh Circuit held below, or can prior precedent establish a clearly established constitutional right despite some factual variation, as this Court, as well as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Tenth Circuits have held?

3. Did the Eleventh Circuit and District Court err in summarily granting qualified immunity to Respondents without considering substantial factual issues of deliberate indifference in the officer's actions?

When the unconstitutionality of an officials' conduct is reasonably obvious, does that suffice to render the violation of those constitutional rights clearly established