Whether the Graham factors apply to a law enforcement officer's use of force during a call for service that does not involve commission of a crime

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this Court should clarify the application of the Graham factors to a law enforcement officer’s use of force during a call for service that does not involve commission of a crime as the officer should not start off, as the Sixth Circuit has described, with two strikes against him or her regarding the severity of the crime and intentional resistance to arrest factors. Whether the obvious factual clarity rule can be applied by a Circuit Court panel to deny qualified immunity to a law enforcement officer in a Fourth Amendment excessive force case, where the District Court determined at the summary judgment stage of the case that the officer’s use of deadly force was constitutional as a matter of law. Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapplied the Graham factors to the evidence and improperly judged Deputy Lozada’s conduct in hindsight. Whether the Eleventh Circuit engaged in reversible error in finding that Deputy Lozada is not entitled to qualified immunity under the unique facts of this case, despite the absence of factually similar case law, by application of the obvious factual clarity rule contrary to this Court’s prior opinions. This case involves the split second decision by Indian River County Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Lozada to use deadly force on Mrs. Susan Teel in the bedroom of her home while she walked toward Lozada with a large knife wielded overhead in a threatening manner. il Lozada fired his weapon as he attempted to retreat, during which time Mrs. Teel continued to advance despite being shot. A third and final shot ended the deadly threat Mrs. Teel posed to Lozada who was only feet away. It is undisputed that Mrs. Teel was suicidal, as reported by her husband, Dr. Teel, and that she was under the influence of both alcohol and medication at the time of the incident. Mrs. Teel had cut herself with the knife, and was bleeding. Dr. Teel had blood on his clothing when Lozada first encountered him upon arrival at the home as the result of Dr. Teel’s failed attempt to control and disarm his wife. The only surviving eye witness to the encounter was Deputy Lozada, who was crisis intervention team trained, as well as a member of the Sheriff's Office’s Crisis Negotiating Team. There is no video of the incident. Deputy Lozada’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the District Court, which found that Lozada’s use of deadly force was constitutional as a matter of law. As a result, the District Court never reached the issue of qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part, finding, among other things, that Lozada was not entitled to qualified immunity as the facts of this case presented a clearly obvious violation of the Constitution and that because this case did not involve the commission of a crime, the Graham factors weighed against Deputy Lozada. iii STATEMENT OF