Whether the Fourth Amendment standard for evaluating unreasonable force claims or the Fourteenth Amendment standard applies when law enforcement shoots, but misses the intended target and an unknown occupant of the residence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner James Fox performed a welfare check at the home of Respondents Mark Campbell and Sherrie Campbell. Mark stated through the closed front door that he had a gun and began to open the door. Fox fired eight shots toward the door. The shots did not strike Mark nor Sherrie who was unknown to be in the residence. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Fourth Amendment standard for evaluating unreasonable force claims established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) or the Fourteenth Amendment standard for evaluation of actions of law enforcement announced in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) apply when law enforcement shoots, but misses the intended target and an unknown occupant of the residence? 2. Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court’s precedents in Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989), California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) and Torres v. Madrid, 141 8. Ct. 989 (2021) by denying qualified immunity to Petitioner and concluding that the respondents were seized when Petitioner fired shots at Mark Campbell in his doorway but missed, and Sherrie Campbell then stayed in the home while Mark Campbell exited the home through both the front and back doors and ignored the deputies’ commands? 3. If the Fourth Amendment standard applies in this case, did the Sixth Circuit properly ii apply this Court’s decision in Graham in concluding that Petitioner was not entitled to qualified immunity when he fired shots in self-defense and not to apprehend a suspect? 4. May precedent other than precedent of this Court be used in determining whether the law is clearly established and did the Sixth Circuit err in determining that it was clearly established that, under respondents’ version of the facts, respondents had been seized and petitioner used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment?