Whether the law was clearly established that following department policies and training would result in individual officer liability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel upheld qualified immunity for two police officers who followed department policies and training when they ordered the driver of a suspected stolen vehicle to exit, to show her waistband, and then to walk backwards towards them. However, the panel majority denied qualified immunity for having the driver kneel for no more than twenty seconds, placing her in handcuffs, and then escorting her behind the line of police vehicles—even though these actions also were consistent with department policies and training. Was the law clearly established at the time of the incident that following department policies and training under similar circumstances would result in individual officer liability? 2. The panel majority denied qualified immunity based upon facts not known to the officers at the time of the incident, finding that the driver “posed no threat” before concluding the law was clearly established that no force could be used on someone who “posed no threat.” Did the panel majority err by using facts not known to the officers at the time, and then applying the clearly established prong at too high a level of generality?